True democracy

Looks like what I said about a hybrid system between representative and direct democracy already exists. It's called Switzerland:

Switzerland features a system of government not seen in any other nation: direct representation, sometimes called half-direct democracy (this may be arguable, because theoretically, the Sovereign of Switzerland is actually its entire electorate). Referendums on the most important laws have been used since the 1848 constitution.

Amendments of the Federal Constitution of Switzerland, the joining of international organizations or changes to federal laws that have no foundation in the constitution but if in force for more than one year must be approved by the majority of both the people and the cantons, a (double majority).

Any citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament. If that person is able to gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority of the voters whether to accept or reject the law.

Also, any citizen may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the constitution. For such an amendment initiative to be organised, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18 months. Such a popular initiative is formulated as a precise new text (general proposal initiatives have been canceled in 2009 [1]) whose wording can no longer be changed by parliament and the government. After a successful signature gathering, the federal council may create a counterproposal to the proposed amendment and put it to vote on the same day as the original proposal. Such counter-proposals are usually a compromise between the status quo and the wording of the initiative. Voters will decide in a national vote whether to accept the initiative amendment, the counter proposal put forward by the government if any, or both. If both are accepted, one has to additionally signal a preference. Initiatives (that are of constitutional level) have to be accepted by a double majority of both the popular votes and a majority of the cantons, while counter-proposals may be of legislative level and hence require only simple majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland#Direct_representation

Plutocracy has always been an element of the Republic, and it will continue this way until all educational barriers are smashed into dust.

And you don't how it is impossible to maintain a capitalist system in a society where the ever changing opinions of the masses can back your business one day and take it away the next? Where the law of the land is popular opinion?

There is one problem wiht that system though, voter fatigue. They go to the polls so often the Swiss just don't want to anymore and is just about the only developed country in the world with a lower voter turnout than Canada.

No iirc the three classifications came from plato, and it was used by many early modern enlightment political philosophers. Although I should look it up. I also said that "the thing we consider democracy" not that what we have now is an actual democracy.

What republican theory are you talking about? The point that western "democracies" are in essence just republics with some minor changes isnt really a theory, its an observable fact I am not disputing.

Well supporting your argument based on thousand years old proto-fascist books isnt really that convincing. Also the studies on mob mentality is often done in cases of extreme pressure (disasters, crashes...etc.) not really "regular" situations you could base your outlook of society on, plus you cant really divorce certain types of mob behaviour from having a society where you continually have a division of rulers and ruled imposed on you (teacher vs. student, boss vs. worker...etc.) thus providing you with a self-perpetuating argument, people arent capable of ruling themselves because they get to rule themselves and therefore they dont get to rule themselves.

Secondly the psychological studies related to the chronic abuse of positions of power is also well documented, thus also aflicting both the current political elite as well as demagogues. And well the last time I checked politicians are also humans, so they are also afflicted by your mob behaviour.

Power abuse by officials is a both a symptom of "greed", which is an ever existing factor of a world that exists in scarcity, and a symptom of mismanagement brought about by political controllers allowing plutocrats to rise above their capabilities.

It is true that the Republic does have as many problems as Democracy, and any other form of Oligarchy for that matter, otherwise they'd be indestructible. But the Republic, as an equalize of interests, does provide the ideal conditions for overcoming both issues of scarcity and mismanagement. And in the long run finally doing away with the Plutocracy.

Why do you think that the Weimar Republic, a representative democracy, is the same as a direct democracy? I simply do not understand. A direct democracy wouldn't have a charismatic leader, surely?

The Weimar Republic was the shell of a Republic (Thanks to the Treaty of Versailles.), essentially any interest group that both wanted power and had the capability of seizing power could take power. Much like Rome when their Republic fell.

More then likely it would have a set of popular figures that have a habit of swaying popular opinion. This is the case for most Egalitarian communes.

Direct democracy is the most efficient way of determining the will of the people on a certain issue. I think we can all agree on that.
But as a person who lives in a direct democracy let me tell you that it is a double edged sword. It is nice that in the end corrupt politicians and lobbying is less of a problem since in the end the people will decide.
But it is terribly slow process where to get anything done it will take time.
For instance in 1990 it was neccesarry for the National Government to overturn the Landsgemeinde(public vote) of a Kanton called Appenzell, who decided that women should not be allowed to vote (wtf! in 1990). People sometimes vote verry intelligently and sometimes verry poorly. Allso direct democracy relies heavily on public opinion, the minarette initiave for instance, Islam has a bad name, specialy amongst women, and if people don't like something they try to hurt it at votes, whenever they can, even if the issues aren't neccessarily related. Same with immigration laws.
Also for an outsider might not as self evident, direct democracy shows different voting behavior based on mentality, we have something called the Röstigraben ( swiss potato dish- trench ), while in french-switzerland (west) people vote more left and social, people in the east are more conservative. Just imagine this effect in a way more diverce country like china, india or the us.

edit: i just wanted to point out as a swiss i feel direct democracy is the right way for our country, and i verry much enjoy this system, but i am verry skeptic that it would work anywhere else.

Switzerland is a heavily democratic Republic. Not a Democracy. Rule of law still prevails, and outside of public referendums plutocratic representatives, who have studied in the subjects of law and political science, make up the governments form.

Well have fun naming the government form of switzerland.
In german: habldirekte Konkordanzdemokratie
direct translation: half direct concordancedemocracy (translation of Konkordanz seams difficult)
from english wiki: Federal republic, with directorial system and direct democracy
For this thread i assumed it is enough to just name it direct democracy, it served the purpose of my argument.

Entirely understandable. I'm just vary nitpicky with terms and specifics.

Sirdust - on the issue of women being barred the right to vote by a public vote, don't you have a constitution to prevent that? In my idea of a hybrid system there would be a constitution limiting direct democracy in that laws cannot be made that discriminate based on gender, sexual preference, race, disability etc.

Again, you're talking about a Federal Republic like the US. I believe your issues with the way the UK operates are all in the parliamentary system.

Yes we do, and that was the legal ground to over-turn the vote. There is a clear law that states: no law can contradict another. And if one does, then the higher ranked law, in this case the constitution and human rights charter, will be applied.
But there is no law preventing conflicting laws to be petitioned(initiative) on constitutional level. It is a clear flaw in the whole process, which brought the whole minarette ban debakel uppon us. Conflicting laws on lower levels is not the problem, since it easily can be overturned in court. The problem starts as i said when contradicting laws starts making their way into the constitution. Then in theory they can't be overturned by a court, unless it is the human rights court in Strassbourg. It will be interessting if the court rules that a ban of minarettes is against the human rights. This will bring a unique challenge to constitutional law in switzerland. Also the question will be posed if a foreign court even has more authority then the will of the people, especialy on a controversial and debatable question like this.

Yeah I looked it up again and Plato had 5 classifications, and the three way division of what we call democracy is by montesqieu.

The fact that many people believed a theory throughout history doesnt do anything as to prove the theory, as of yet you havent provided any arguments in favour of the theory that direct democracy inherently causes demagogues to rise to power that cant be disproven quite easily.

the bad thing about democracy is that idiots can vote.

It kinda sounded like you were advocating the theory, as in:

My montesqieu is quite rusty, but isnt his idea about his seperation of powers still something different from his combination of those three types of governement?