A Good Argument For....

LOL, no. It is the majority ruling over the minority. And as thus the minority is easily oppressed, like being voted out because blood libel says they are wolves then they are not.

There would still be a constitution to protect minority rights. Plus rule by the majority is a far cry from rule by the minority. We all see where that's got us.

Except of course, in a direct democracy, actually following the constitution would be a policy that would be up to the population to vote on. As such they can ignore it or just pretend that they are not doing what they are actually doing.

If you add a check against this you end up with policy being partially directed by representatives in the government against the majority of the population and thus not direct democracy.

We already have a partial measure of a direct democracy. We have IR&C to differing degrees in 26 states. To argue against direct democracy is to argue in part against what we already have. We simply want more of it and less influence by “representatives” who now work for their funders instead of their constituents. Direct Democracy helps keep things honest. One of the first things a direct democracy should do is separate big money from state. Once this is accomplished representatives will act more honestly as the system will have been shifted. As it is corruption cannot vote itself clean. Only The People can do that.

Direct democracy doesn't have representatives and little prevents big money lying to people to influence voting.

Actually direct democracy is an element within a countries system and has not fully manifested to date. Direct Democracy already exists in this system in 26 states in the form of initiatives, referendums, and recall. Recall is an element where a “Representative” can be recalled out of office if the public is unhappy with their performance.

That isn't direct democracy.