I find it quite dangerous to think most people are too naive to vote on important issues. Trained politicians are also very much impacted by gut reactions and irrational behavior (though in favour of one's own party/career/etc).

People don't necessarily all use the same objective functions. I think many were disappointed by the EU as they perceive it as an economic-only enterprise, where not everyone wins. I think many could be OK with a lower GDP, and a slower and more local economy, etc. It's not so clear on the long run what will actually be the best for UK and its people.

In Switzerland, people vote on different issues about 12 times a year. Some of these issues are quite complex and technical (for instance, how should benefits of some state-dependent companies be handled, etc). Some are easy yet extremely consequential. Usually there is no particular tendency to fall for the easy stories based on gut feelings. In general I think that able to vote is more important (mostly for stability), even if it leaves a door open to populism.

> I find it quite dangerous to think most people are too naive to vote on important issues.

I disagree. Sure it's possible to have a public educated enough to decide whether being in the EU is a good idea, (hi Switzerland), but the fact of the matter is that this doesn't apply to either the US or likely the UK.

It's possible to have a nation where direct democracy is effective, but I'd say it's more the exception to the rule.

So how did you establish "the fact" that the Swiss public, in particular, is "educated enough" and the US and the UK public, in particular, are not? Is there a standard somewhere, a test that was done, or is it just the good old "seems to me"?

> how did you establish "the fact" that the Swiss public, in particular, is "educated enough"

I didn't - I said it's possible.

> the US and the UK public, in particular, are not?

To me this seems a self-apparent fact, but I admit it may not appear so to others. I'm not sure specifically where I'd lie my standard, but I'd say the public support for Donald Trump falls dramatically below wherever it would be.

Right, the correct answer is a well-informed public, and the answer is education.

I agree. At minimum, these kind of decisions should require 50% of all eligible voters to to agree, not only 50% of those who cast their votes, or alternatively 2/3rds of the cast votes. Also, this kind of decision could require some kind of multi part vote. I wonder, how the results were, if they had to cast a vote again in a few days.

Here in Germany, we have a strict representative democracy. But we have regional elections often enough, that the government gets to feel, if voters no longer agree with it. So it is a balance between short term popularity a long term considerations.

I am with you 100 percent. I would say that one of the primary examples of the problems with direct democracy is California. Here you have a very liberal state, but because of the proposition system, when it comes time to vote on some of these issues only the crazies com out to vote.

But isn't this the point of direct democracy? That you can elect someone (a MP) to represent you in most issues you care mildly about, despite not agreeing with them on some very important issues. You get to vote on those issues separately.

Disclaimer: I voted to remain (I fit the demographic of the 16 million - postgrad degree, professional &c).

The leave voters I spoke to kept mentioning 'feeling in control' and concern about EU immigration and benefits. Also 'don't want them to ignore us'. Basically, bye election rhetoric. They bought the suggestion that 'a deal will be done' about England's access to European Economic Area as more or less certain.

I hope they are right about the last one :-)

I hope they're not. I will welcome all the remain territories back into the EU with open arms but I think people should learn to live with the consequences of their small minded decisions. We've been hearing all this nonsense about leaving for years and quite frankly I'm sick of it. Cameron thought he could play politics and look smart and instead he got royally shafted. He will live with the consequences for the rest of his life for sure. If people want to be selfish, greedy and easily manipulated puppets then they should be made live in the world they have chosen. For the rest of us we can continue on with our progress unimpeded by small-minded BS.

OK, I should have said "some powerful business interests in Germany especially will hope they prove to be right about the last one".

Ironically, I heard that access to European Economic Area means european regulations, european migrants, european workers. Basically everything they hate

Yes, exactly, and in a superb example of Rorty's irony, no control or consultation whatsoever - known as 'government by fax' in Switzerland.

But people forget, and when the jobs start going, ideas will change.

The more I look at the geographical/demographical distribution of voting, the more I see evidence of turkeys voting for Christmas.

All most strange. Enough for quite a few data analysis projects I think!

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-su...

I think by Direct Democracy the parent means where every vote is put to the people rather than via an elected proxy like an MP.

I completely agree with you that in many situations like this where there is a direct democratic referendum, many do not know what what will be good for them. However, I am weary that having a small group of politicians tell the people what is good for them is much better. I'm not sure there is a clear solution.

I think it's a mistake to compare this to direct democracy. If referenda are the appropriate tool for anything at all, it for determining the consent of the governed.