> I need to learn more about those other systems, I might revise some of my opinions I really recommend looking at Switzerland; U.S. on state level also has lo

> I need to learn more about those other systems, I might revise some of my opinions I really recommend looking at Switzerland; U.S. on state level also has lot of direct democracy and similar tradition. > the cost is higher but not limiting, so the result is that more of society's resources are redirected towards that It's not a failure of democracy, it's absence of it. Some people have more power due to economic inequality. > basic assumption is that of a population well-educated in the issues to be decided This is not really an issue. Switzerland and places in U.S. (not to mention Iceland) have more than 100 year tradition in direct democracy, do you think back then the population was better educated? And the sky didn't fall, in fact these places are some of the most advanced in the world. > And yet we accept this from companies and politicians, and we even turned it into a respectable occupation choice I agree. > people may be "pretty positive towards solving these problems" as long as it doesn't require any sacrifices from them In practice, not always true. There have been some examples in direct democracies where people voted for e.g. higher taxes. As long as it is fair, people can actually accept it quite well. But it requires lot of trust in the society, which Eastern Europe countries, for instance, may not have. Good democracy actually produces this trust. > At this point we really need someone to force some solutions on people The problem is once you start forcing solutions onto people, you have opened a really bad can of worms. Lot of dictators had good intentions in the beginning, but somehow their "forcing of solutions" got a little out of hands.