> I'm asking what is the evidence that right now, piles and piles of Americans support direct democracy.

And the evidence is that they have it and choose to keep it, since its existence allows them to remove or further limit it should they wish to.

The United States has been on a long bend toward more direct democracy because it’s self reinforcing. How would you “remove” direct democracy? Put it to a “vote of the people”? Okay. Now you have to convince them that they should give up their “power” to directly inform their governance. Who is going to vote for this? As more and more people become accustomed to voting on more and more issues that were previously the exclusive purview of their elected representatives, of course they’re going to want more of that same structure. You get to a point where you’re putting enormously complex issues to a vote, which is just kind of mind boggling to me.

Not sure if we’re agreeing or disagreeing, but to state my position explicitly direct democracy is the final form of decline for civil republican government. After that you’re headed for authoritarianism, be it left or right.

“Should they wish to” is frankly wishful thinking.

> Now you have to convince them that they should give up their “power” to directly inform their governance. Who is going to vote for this?

You so realize that you are literally making my point that direct democracy has significant support?

> “Should they wish to” is frankly wishful thinking.

I think you are confused about the subject: that they manifestly don't wish to is my entire point.

I know I’m making your point. I was trying to. I’m in total agreement that direct democracy is an unstoppable force.

The last sentence I wrote was perhaps me misunderstanding your phrasing. I’m operating from a prior that direct democracy is very bad, and should be avoided.

Rhetorically what I meant was that “should they wish to” is not a meaningful distinction, since they would never wish not to [operate via direct democracy once that Pandora’s box is opened].