Give me at least one reason direct democracy is not, morally speaking, the best form of human government

This!

Swiss style semi direct democracy and concordance type government are obviously are the fairest and most stable political system. No question about it.
Unfortunately no one will ever know, larger countries likely won't adopt the system ever and even smaller countries seem to be happy with their concurrence type governments. Maybe Iceland adopts it some day.

It doesn't seem to work well in California.

California's system is vastly different from the Swiss one.

Political leaders, elected or not, can also panic, be overconfident or be misled by advisors.

Scenario 1 (Direct Democracy): 51% of citizens vote in favor of having the remaining 49% brutally murdered with medieval torture devices

Scenario 2 (Representative Democracy): Representatives of the citizens vote in favor of a bill that would have 49% of the population brutally murdered with medieval torture devices, but regional representatives in a separate chamber meant to preserve the rights of lower population districts through an equal two representatives assigned per district regardless of population shoot it down

That's why it would be better to have checks and balances in place on representatives in addition to having both majority and minority interests represented to some extent.

civil rights.

The last election in the USA is all you need.

Most people in the world have always been savages. My theory is that traditional aristocracy arose as much from superior social abilities as much as raw control of power. Because no one can maintain power without the consent of their followers at some level.

Can you name ONE state in human history that had actual democracy

>If it were constitutionally limited in terms of what it could do it would be workable
No it wouldn't.

Because God wants judges

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino

Because you get easily manipulable dumbfucks to have a say in how the country you're living in should be run.

Switzerland.

You can have those checks and balances also in direct democracy. In Switzerland the Federal court checks Refernenda before putting them up for vote.

Humans are stupid. Mobs rule is not the way to go.

Representative allows for "best" of the bunch to make the decision instead of hasty mobs.

>"oii m8 we want to built giant penois statue, will ya agree m8? Cool meme dick m8! let's do referendum."

>Humans are stupid. Mobs rule is not the way to go.
Why does Switzerland work then so well?
>rich as fuck
>well governed
>manages to keep out of world war and everything else

1. Making good political decisions requires good education. Representatives are, on average, far more educated than the populace. This is thanks to the many stages of selection.

2. Modern societies work through division of labour. Representatives are a manifestation of division of labour. They are highly specialized labourers of politics. Think about it like this: Even if you could, would you want to sit down with others and talk about politics the whole day, every single fucking day for the rest of your life? (t. Sieyès)

3. You need time to work yourselves into subject matters. My parliament passes ~400 big laws per year. The average working adult doesn't have the time to read up on hundreds of pages of information material every single day. Not even professional politicians have the time to do that fully, but they are far more likely to have the time to inform themselves more elaborately.

4. Veto-organizations can shut all political work down, making nothing get done.

5. When asking the populace, direct Democracy requires a complex issue to be dumbed down into a simple yes/no-dichotomy that doesn't reflect reality.

6. Who decides how to formulate the question? The initiators. This gives a lot of power to this small group.

7. Direct Democracy is the form of government most vulnerable to well-organized interest groups, who wield much more influence there.

8. The wealthy and educated tend to have higher participation rates. Sounds good, but isn't.

9. Functioning direct democratic elements are very expensive. They are more expensive, the more often and elaborate you want to employ them.

10. Direct democratic voting turnout in countries that regularly (!) employ these as a tool tend to be extremely low and the initiators tend to have a significantly higher turnout than the opposing side.

11. Representatives SHOULD be emancipated from their voters (t. Burke).

Leaders are chosen through a popularity contest rather than according to their competence.

>Give me at least one reason direct democracy is not, morally speaking, the best form of human government.
morals aren't real you faggot

I want to live i a democracy because all non-democracies are fucking shitholes.

...

>morally speaking

So, I should reaffirm what is already stated in the premise out of which you are operating?

It's the only system named democracy that has the right to call itself democracy.
Daily reminder that if your country is a representative democracy it's actually a disguised oligarchy.

This comic is dumb. One should wonder how vile must have Bob's behavior been to create such a unanimous rejection.

That's not how it works. Direct democracies usually rely on qualified majorities rather than simple majorities for decisions with this level of importance.

Athens of (in b4 irrelevant garbage about women and foreigners not being allowed to vote).

>You can have those checks and balances also in direct democracy

Mutually exclusive. The federal court already makes switzerland a representative democracy

This is simply wrong. The vast majority of elected representatives are certainly not the best for obvious reasons. First elections will select people on their abilities to seduce people, not on their ability to govern. Second the best people will create their own companies in the private sector. Better pay and you are your own master.

This is an argument in favor of direct democracy, not against.

Bullshit. Majority of cantons is a balance already, and the pre-evaluation of the Federal court only filters out nonsense initiatives and laws which run contrary to Ius Cognens. Feel free to bring some examples where the Federal court ruled different.
Also the Referendum (public vote to reject parliament made laws if requested) is a massive check to the parliament.

I think it's clear that Bob is an asshole or that these people are assholes. Either way, the voting system is not to blame - either Bob would be killed without it for whatever reason made everyone want him dead in the first place or the other assholes would have killed him without due process just because together they are stronger than Bob.

Whats special about the Swiss is they don't have a real Head of State or head of Government. Instead they rely on a council of seven ministers that have equal powers and are elected according to the party strengths in the parliament. It is taken care that the ministers ethnic background (french, german, italian) is representative of the country. That council is continuously office since 1848 and the ministers itself stay for an indefinite time in office.
Thats pretty impressive republican politics!

Direct democracy is hard to arrange on large scale and it causes hardships for the elites to govern people as always.

>Scenario 1 (Direct Democracy): 51% of citizens vote in favor of having the remaining 49% brutally murdered with medieval torture devices
51% of citizens would be terrified of setting a precedent that would facilitate procedings should their system be inclined to brutally murder them with medieval torture devices and so this wouldn't come to be. Even if 51% of the people went temporarily insane and made such a decision that could so easily backfire on them, the odds of a few representatives going insane is higher than the odds of many more people going insane.

And who would enforce this decision? Would the army be made up of those 51%, with none of the 49% having a share of control of these institutions? If so, one wonders what was the purpose of the vote, when clearly the 51% was willing and able to kill the others without democratic proceedings.

You lack the more important point, such a decision would mean disintegration of nation and civil war. Thats why such scenarios are ruled out in working direct democracies. Sharing the armed forces by public conscription is another balance that keeps things lively.