>Current implementation of democratic systems is result of the fact that process for voting had been expensive in pre-Internet era. No, it is not. Democratic

>Current implementation of democratic systems is result of the fact that process for voting had been expensive in pre-Internet era. No, it is not. Democratic reforms have always been won by fighting entrenched elites protecting their power and privilege. It has never been about the 'expense'. People without property, blacks, women, etc. were not prevented from voting because it wasn't cheap enough or because they were too dumb (not that that excuse wasn't used frequently). Democratic reforms do not happen when everybody comes together to agree that they are a sensible next step. They happen when the masses fight and sacrifice with blood, sweat and sometimes their lives. Our representatives aren't experts in foreign policy or economics or other relevant policy matters either (series of tubes, anyone?). They rely upon advisors. This is another source of unchecked power and privilege (particularly for the economics profession, which abuses this power ruthlessly and are often no more competent at running an economy than the average person). Direct democracy is not available to us today because we didn't fight for it. It has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with a lack of activism (the kind which involves real work). As a society we're actually steadily de-democratizing and moving towards a more feudalistic model where the decisions are largely made by legions of unelected financiers, elite economists and a corporate elite.