Typically direct democratic institutions require a two thirds majority, and have a even higher ratio of approval for more intrusive policies, they also usually have something that protects minority rights. You'll notice a lot of the better unions run this way, Like the I.W.W. and I believe C.N.T. is also run that way.
They say democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat, but the wolf is the minority in reality, not the sheep, just like our bourgeois Representative in Congress or Parliament or whatever.
That's mostly false, because since the very principle of democracy is mob rule, if there is a clear majority, no matter how ignorant or contradicting the vote may be, it gets passed: even if you can set that two thirds limit, once it's passed it can be removed as a factor, and even if it can't, so what? Then the 66+ percent can just do whatever. The very idea of the constitutional republic is contradictory to this: the majority's and the state's power is limited, because the republic only respects the authority of law, the goal of the republican government is to represent the law, not whatever arbitrary will "the people" who are actually just the temporary majority, may have. The people, actually don't have a will- the majority just wants to live comfortably, and voters are easily swayed by the most persuasive, whatever you want to call them is arbitrary to what side of the battle you're on. If it's a fight of unions and corporations and you're a unionist, to you the mob is the corporation, they're just evil people, to you of course, but the point is that you think increasing democracy and reducing the restrictions of legality of politics will win you some sort of fighting chance. It won't. In reality, these are all just entities in a political system, everyone is their own entity, and because we really aren't equal in any material respect, making people not only exactly equal politically but also above the idea of restricting their power: only empowers those that have the means of convincing the majority of their own righteousness. That means "the good guys" whoever they are to you, and also nazis and fascists and pacifists and Buddhists and tea partiers and scientologists- if they ever come up with an organized enough mob, guess what? You're fucked. When anything is placed above the law, than ultimately, it succumbs to lawnessness, because the idea of fundamental decency, integrity and honor are the standard that all should aspire to. When you toss this away in state-building, you end up with nothing but chaos, mob rule at best. I may (or may have not, can't recall) tossed you this vid already, but I heartily recommend you look over it: [link]
I won't sit here and tell you how perfect direct democracy is, but it seems to be the best form of organization yet conceived. Direct democracy's advantage over other systems is the only system that has the possibility of creating political equality. Any other system is a system of Hierarchy, which has a nasty habit of breeding corruption. I'm actually about to write a paper on the nature of power, corruption and hierarchy. corruption is basically using power for ones self, which is difficult to do when no one has any centralized power over others. People criticize direct democracy because they think people are too corrupt and stupid to govern themselves, but it seems profoundly stupid to give one of these corrupt and stupid people so much power over others.
Of course I'm not at all advocating a direct democratic state, nor a state at all. There is a difference between government and state. The government is simply some form of society organizing, typically within a particular geographical region. The state is essentially legalized force, The FBI, CIA, DEA, TSA, are all examples of the state. Honestly, what's the difference between a landlord using police to enforce rent, and some gang using weapons to enforce tribute payments except one form of coercion is "legal." The state and government are often overlapped and intertwined, but are very different things. Also, the existence of the state is what allows capitalism to be "legal" as it enforces "legal" property rights.
Also, I was far from advocating a centralized government, typically, direct democratic systems are in a federation or confederation (as in french political philosophy, not federalist papers in U.S.) style, such as Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (C.N.T. English: National Confederation of Labour) in Spain, an anarchist Union, Or several Anarchist Federations like, NEFAC (Northeastern Federation of Anarchists Communists) F.A.I (Federación Anarquista Ibérica english: Iberian Anarchist Federation) SOLFED (Solidarity Federation) and AFED (Anarchist Federation). They are typically subdivided by geographic location.
How about we all just agree to be fair and generous to one another. That's the real problem with society, not our government type. I mean, it doesn't really matter what form of government, some people are out to get theirs and they don't care who or what gets screwed over in the process. 'This' is the biggest problem with the world, not communism/capitalism.