LaFille - if you feel lost towards the 'hard' subject, as I formulated, then I am sorry. Evoking such feelings was not my intention. If however your statement is to be read as 'the subject of politics is hard, because I'm young and inexperienced' - then that's exactly the right attitude! Not the ones having experience voting 12 times for the same party without further thinking, but those who are uncertain and think about their vote will be the catalysts to change.
It is not talking or thinking about the subject, nor how you put it that is discouraging; but since politic is a so complex machine, that it is/was used for so many bad/egoist purposes and that it is so well established and hard to change, it can't help but generate a kind of "disillusion" feeling. Politic is like a dam on wich every time you patch a hole or repair a crack it begins to leak by somewhere else. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
I am from a generation where young people were still (a bit) interested in politic. It is not really the case now; youngs don't follow it anymore, the voting rate drops everytime, people voting do it more and more on their feeling of the moment. People have kind of lost confidence in the system, feel excluded from it and it seems to be at the point where the rebellion/contestation desire is passed (here the 60s-70s-80s were boiling politic periods); from the 90s on, people are getting more and more tired, disgusted and feeling that the efforts are made in vain. The youngs who militate now do it most for much more accessible/immediate causes, and a lot of people from the older generations are very bitter on the subject. It is a sad portrait to me, but I understand well that they might feel that way; and today's emphasis on individuality/egocentism and economy/profit is not a helping factor to the current "apathy".
As for the feeling of being lost, it comes from the size & complexitiy of the system as much as from the way we can get information on it. Information is most always biaised; the medias do lots of sensationalism, the politicians play a seduction game in order to have/remain in power. So it is hard to get a good view of the machine/situation for people who were just dropped in.
If a direct democracy is a way that would get back the people's interest to politics, it might just be a good thing. Another potential advantage is that it could give people a way to "force" some of the government's decisions.
As for negative points it may have, the only ones I can think of is that maybe it would be harder for the minorities to be protected in a such system? And maybe that the "ordinary citizens" lack the time/wisdom to make good decisions? But if so, doesn't that apply to democracy in any form then? Would this system/process be very expensive?
As for the topics on wich referendums would be, I assume that it would be on questions on wich the people's will is opposed to the will of the government, or on those where the population is divided.
People could obtain the government to hold a referendum by submitting petitions where a definite minimum percentage of the population express their will to be consulted on the subject? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
