Take Brexit, and let's lay aside the question of whether or not it was a good idea, for the sake of argument let's just acknowledge there were strong feelings on both sides.

The fact that it was a referendum meant that for the sake of a very small margin, an enormous number of people are very unhappy with the result.

And if the government had backtracked on the referendum result, the same issue would apply - in terms of being a united nation we were screwed either way.

In representative democracy, by way of comparison, such a small margin would mean the winner had to tread a very careful line with any legislation they tried to pass, thus in general leading to more reasonable compromise solutions.

The EU is an unbelievably abstracted entity, and with trans-national issues in general, I think it would be difficult to find any example of a resolution that makes everyone happy.

Here's a few observations though:

- I'm guessing from your comment you would rather Brexit hadn't passed. Do you think it wouldn't have happened if it had been up to govt. (without referendum)?

- one should also look at things holistically: do you think Brexit would have ever been proposed (in the form that it was) if people were more directly involved in the decision-making that led to its formation as an idea?

- a vote for Brexit was ultimately a vote of dissatisfaction with a large range of other political issues people felt they didn't have enough of a direct say in. If those various areas were more open to public involvement, would we have had the level of discontent that drove the Brexit vote?

> In representative democracy, by way of comparison, such a small margin would [...] (lead) to more reasonable compromise solutions.

Ultimately, I don't buy this. It's not necessarily true at all. But even if it were, the same would be true of a direct-democracy approach because what you're comparing is representative democracy with 1 big binary vote at the end, where in reality greater engagement in the process as a whole would lead to a very different referendum proposal document (if any).

I used to be in favour of direct democracy btw and somewhat changed my mind lately. The 2019 Reith lectures may have something to do with it - Sumption raised quite a lot of points I hadn't thought of before, in particular making a link between direct democracy and our lawyer-up culture of everyone-suing-everyone-else-all-the-time (the linking factor being the appropriate role of judges in society). I think he would also say it's the first past the post system that has caused so much alienation from the political process (when so many have votes that don't count), rather than there being a problem with representative democracy per se. Worth a listen (also on any podcast app): https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m9/episodes/player

I would add that there's a bunch of other issues that caused that alienation, not least mainstream economics being so far divorced from reality for so long; also our media is a disgrace (not that I have any ideas for fixing it I'm afraid).

So would it have happened if we had direct democracy beforehand? I don't know, but I reckon we'd have replaced one problem with another one generating just as much discontent.

Sorry I had missed your context on local issues, you are right about the EU being abstract to most people, though there will always be issues in trying to draw a line between local and global.

I think I'd agree with this analysis. I live in Ireland, where we have PRSTV (for somewhat hilarious historical reasons while we were under British rule—a Unionist minority wanting better representation in local politics[0]), and while our representative democracy is still riddled with problems and voter alienation, I still think those are multifaceted and have various other complex causes; PRSTV itself is pretty decent as far as representative systems go.

[0] https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-his...

Trump, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Orban, and so many others wouldn’t be possible here.

And that’s a killer feature.

Answer that explicitly (without changing the language used by the opposition) and you might make more, um, progress.

Of course not all progress is positive so I was narrowing the scope of the word to limit it to only progressive initiatives that benefit a majority of constituents (in particular, in this example, an absent majority)

A very useful question. In any disagreement, it's important to answer both "What would change my mind?" and "How will I know I am done/have won?"

Without answers to both of those, it is difficult to win over anyone who doesn't already agree. The first question shows that one is acting in informed good faith. The second lets people know exactly what they are being asked to agree with.