The United States congress should be dismantled and replaced with a direct democratic voting system

Alright; I will format my argument as you have yours.1) I have explained the issues with allowing popular people to represent instead of specific politicians. It will only strengthen the issues that we already have with our current systems, as I explained in the fifth paragraph of my previous argument. You may also refer to the ninth paragraph in the same argument, which explains "tyranny of the majority." I will further address the idea later in this argument.2) The current congress system allows for balanced votes that are not based on the dreaded "majority rule." I have explained why a "popular vote" does not always work and how it is often unfair, and shall continue to as I finish this debate. You say that you would be in favor of instant run-off voting, but that format is inefficient. Not only does it cause people to inaccurately vote beyond their initial candidate of choice, but it is susceptible to "tactical voting." [1]3) I have explained why I disagree with this idea in section one of this argument here. To continue, in your argument, you are explaining that "a method could be worked out" without providing serious examples. What you have described is "an individual popular vote to elect an individual that represents popular vote." If you want to have a direct democracy with instant run-off voting, bothering with representatives would only cause even more trouble. Our current system has its limits, while your idea will lead to overly-influential individuals that are not qualified for their given position. History has shown us that power can lead a country to riots, and that an overpowered majority can cause ethnic discrimnation.4) If the federal government is smaller, this leads to considerably less regulations, and by extension, a lack of response to any possible issues or flaws that require an answer. There is a reason that the constitution has changed since it was first drafted. There is a reason that the federal government has grown larger. We didn't do "just fine." We have had hills to climb in order to get through many issues that we faced.5) Congress acting on behalf of the will of organizations and elites isn't relevant, because it's all connected. Congress acting for the people only helps your argument, and you're calling it an issue that relates to my arguement. The United States congress acts for the United States. Let's say that this claim of yours that you have not backed up isn't true. What's the issue with the congress now? For the people or for the country, you haven't given any reason for the congress to be dismantled.6) You say that the veto and supreme court are enough to manage the "tyranny of the majority." That's a dangerous mindset to have. Even if they were, you still have the wrongly influential "majority" to think about. There are too many issues with a majority. An example of tyranny of the majority is ethnic discrimination. [2] I suggest that you give the sources that I have provided each their own open-minded and attentive reading sessions.Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu...