Taken To Its Logical....

Hmmm, what's worse mob rule or Oligarchy rule? What can potentially keep it in check, a constitution with God given inalienable rights. So with a proper constitution if the general public is out of kilter from our innate rights then the courts will bar such bills or portions of bills, etc. In short, I'd rather have a constitutional Direct Democracy than a Republic with a veneer of democracy. This way at least the people get to govern themselves than corrupted super rich powerful interests who if left uncheck will end up destroying civil society and the natural world around us which our very survival of a species is dependent on.

The founding fathers though progressive for the day were far from perfect. Before there was a republic there was the monarchy. It's time to evolve to something better. Theoretically we can change the constitution the same as a theoretical DD. Again with a constitution and a super majority process of amending will keep the worst possible abuses by the masses at bay. But the oligarchy, there is no stopping them under this system. So though the Constitutional DD will not be perfect it will be worlds better than what we have now.

The "Republic of Rome" had emperors. Regardless Direct Democracy is the next giant leap in political evolution. A politician who our votes is suppose to get into office is no more reasonable than the people who could direct vote on the issues themselves. In fact they are less reasonable as who really gets them into office are party insiders (primarily from the duopoly) and the funders who back them. This is what does and is going to lead to further death and destruction and is pretty much already totalitarian as it is. What you call "the mob" is your projection. The reality is we the people deserve to rule ourselves. The constitution pretty much states that. And if the government becomes corrupted we have not only a right but a duty to create a new government. And this time I hope we've learned a lesson from the last.

The republic did NOT have emperors. They had two consuls or in times of dire need they could promote someone to dictator temporarily. The consuls led the senate but were still beholden to it. And direct democracy is an older form of government than republics. It isn't an evolution, it's a devolution. One that rather than letting us "rule ourselves" like you say, would only let other people rule you more so than they already do. If you aren't in the majority nothing you want matters.

You can call them emperors or consuls but they probably had in all overwhelming likelihood a disproportionate amount of power. And those in the senate were not elected by the common people but those who were basically rich landowners. I'm also guess these positions were probably often rigged, not much unlike today. I'm sure they had their own form of oligarchy as well. Though the DD of the past I'm sure was far from perfect the devolution was the other way around.

Regardless the DD of today that's being advocated would be different in several key ways. One it would not exclude the poor, certain races, and women. Also it would not be simply a DD but a constitutional DD meaning laws could not be created (or they'd be overturned) if they violated the constitution. In any case those few differences would be huge and would help mitigate what you call "mob rule". Ultimately what this system would give to the people a government of by and for them and the world and society would be vastly better for it.

You don't understand Roman government. Yes, senators were unelected noblemen. There was a secondary assembly entirely for the plebs, however. The common people elected magistrates, voted on laws, and the assembly could not be overturned by the senate, nor could any patricians vote in it.
The consuls did NOT have totalitarian power, and the senate more than once turned against a consul who abused what power he did have. Adding a larger voting demographic doesn't change anything about DD. I don't know why you think minority groups and women would somehow drastically alter the way a government functions? They are still human.

I'll pass on direct democracy, thanks. Athens tried it, it failed. Don't need to try it again to know how it's going to end with 300+ million people instead of less than 1 million

Did they really have a Direct Democracy? I don't recall women nor slaves being able to vote. And I'd have to go back and check but I'd bet classism was being practiced as well. Regardless other city states like Sparta pummeled them. That doesn't have anything to do with direct democracy but one state over powering another. That is an issue of power not virtue.

Athens was indeed a direct democracy. Any citizen of the city could vote and/or address the public assembly.

As far as losing to the Spartans, that WAS caused by direct democracy.
"In 415 B.C. Alcibiades convinced the Athenian assembly to vote to launch a massive naval campaign against the large island of Sicily1 to seek the great riches awaiting a conqueror there and prevent any Sicilian cities from aiding the Spartans. Formally speaking, Athens was responding to a request for support from the Sicilian city of Egesta (also known as Segesta2), with whom an alliance had been struck more than thirty years earlier. The Egestans encouraged Athens to prepare a naval expedition3 by misrepresenting the extent of the resources that they had to devote to the military campaign against non-allies in Sicily. The prosperous city of Syracuse4 near the southeastern corner of the island represented both the richest prize and the largest threat. In the debate preceding the vote on the expedition, Alcibiades and his supporters argued that the numerous war ships in the fleet of Syracuse represented an especially serious potential threat to the security of the Athenian alliance because they could sail from Sicily to join the Spartan alliance in attacks on Athens and its allies. Nicias led the opposition to the proposed expedition, but his arguments for caution failed to counteract the enthusiasm for action that Alcibiades generated with his speeches. His aggressive dreams of martial glory especially appealed to young men, who had not yet experienced the realities of war for themselves. The assembly resoundingly backed his vision by voting to send to Sicily the greatest force ever to sail from Greece. The arrogant flamboyance of Alcibiades' private life and his blatant political ambitions had made him many enemies in Athens,5 and they managed to get him recalled from the expedition's command by accusing him of having participated in a sacrilegious mockery of the Eleusinian Mysteries and being mixed up in the sacrilegious vandalizing of statues6 called Herms7 just before the sailing of the expedition. Alcibiades' reaction to the charges certainly was unforeseen: he deserted to Sparta."

The ability of a few men to sway the opinion of the uninformed public(the assembly was comprised of the Athenian citizenry) led them to send a monster of a military force across the Med to Sicily where it was utterly destroyed by Syracuse and a number of other small Greek cities.

quote above from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0009%3Achapter%3D12%3Asection%3D1%3Asubsection%3D12

didn't have room to put link in the post, so here it is.

At any rate after the invasion of Sicily failed(virtually everyone was captured or killed), Sparta and the other enemies of Athens renewed hostilities, they had mass rebellions in their territories across the Aegean, and the Persian Empire decided to help Sparta.

It was not just a simple matter of "oh them supersoldier spartanz just came and kicked in the door". Athens was actually the stronger city by a fair margin, but they threw their advantages away due to public greed. The mob CANNOT run a state. Even barring the situations Timber mentions where the public will start to bash down anyone who disagrees.. the general public isn't experienced or informed enough to responsibly handle foreign affairs. How many people did you hear ignorantly talk about nuking the middle east into a sheet of glass after 9/11? I couldn't even count.

I had heard of this historical blunder of Athens before. And though I'm not an expert I can at least address what it looks like you've copied and pasted from I assume a reputable source. First off it seems Alcibiades convinced the assembly not everyone in Athens. I'm sure if ordinary women/slaves were voting they would not have had near the support they seemed to have. Second they Sparta was already their enemy in which it seems much Sicily was their ally. It could be argued this was a tactical maneuver to protect themselves. But then again I'm not much of a fan of preemptive strikes. Finally if Alcibiades didn't defect to the enemy to I presume give them sensitive information they very well might have conquered Sicily.

Regardless DD is not a guarantee of perfection/utopia. But it does put the power back into people's hands. For us to "elect" representatives, most of which in the more powerful positions have been pre-selected and pushed by party insiders and their rigged systems,media connections, etc, yet to assume such compromised individuals and going to do what's right whereas the public would not is absurd. We basically have an oligarchy in which the politicians work for not us. And if war was the litmus test as to why a system should not be this system should have been dismantled ages ago as if you know your history as claimed you would also know we've been at war for the vast majority of our history which is one of the major reasons we need DD.

If the slaves could vote they wouldn't be slaves, no? They'd likely vote the same way as the rest of the population, seeing as they were also mostly greeks. I can't say with the women's vote.. but they weren't the ones going off to fight and the ancient world seemed to hold warriors in much higher esteem than today - I doubt they'd have opposed it too hard. After all, a victory in Sicily means wealth for them, too. Women aren't immune to greed. It's all speculation, though. The fact that we've been at war for almost our entire history is exactly why I'm so grateful that we don't have DD. Do you really think the jingoists of the past would've voted for LESS war? The USA has always believed we're hot shit and have not been afraid to show it - letting the general public decide when to go to war would've destroyed us ages ago.