The problem with referenda is they are effective as breaks on an out of touch legislature rather than problem solving tools in and of themselves. In a democrac

The problem with referenda is they are effective as breaks on an out of touch legislature rather than problem solving tools in and of themselves. In a democracy you have to horse trade. You have to compromise. If 51% want X and 49% want not X, then you don't implement X, you implement 51% of X, or alternately you give the opponents something else so everyone walks away a little happy and a little unhappy. The idea of total victory as a result of getting 51% jeapordizes the republic as a whole -- that's how you get secession and create chaos, by locking people out entirely instead of giving them some of what they want and some of what they don't want. Referenda aren't able to do this. They aren't able to put people into a room and say "OK, we will put a bridge here and to gain your support we'll move the library over there". That type of consensus gathering process is critical to governing, which is why long lasting forms of government require closer to 60% or even more, e.g. they add various hoops and checks and balances to prevent the 51% from forcing their way and excluding the 49%. These anti-democratic measures are required for democracy to work. This is similar to leading a team. If you have 10 devs and 6 are strongly for something and 4 are strongly against, only the bad manager chooses to steamroll over the 4. The good manager will find some alternate compromise to get most of those 4 onboard, because you don't want to lose a large chunk of your team and need a broader consensus than just 50% +1.