Is direct democracy superior to representative democracy?

Direct democracy engenders civic responsibility

Question: Is direct democracy superior to representative democracy?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, direct democracy is superior
Argument‹3 of 4›: Direct democracy engenders civic responsibility

Direct democracy encourages people to take an interest in the society in which they live.

The argument

On this view the decisive difference between direct and representative democracy lies not in the efficiency of decision-making but in what each asks of the citizen. In a direct democracy the affairs of the state are the responsibility of every citizen, and there is no intermediary to whom that responsibility can be transferred: it cannot be left to elected representatives or to economic elites. Proponents argue that this changes the incentives facing everyone involved. Because a citizen's own vote settles the question rather than merely choosing who will settle it, each has a direct incentive to participate and to attend to the substance of policy; and because the quality of the decision then depends on the competence of the whole body of voters rather than of a professional political class, the state itself acquires a reason to ensure that every voter has a high level of education in public policy, so that each can properly dispense the duty the system assigns. The consequence proponents draw is a difference in the relationship between citizens and the decisions taken in their name. Where policy is made by representatives, a citizen can regard an unwelcome outcome as something done by others and disown it; where the citizen has voted on the measure itself, the decision is their own, and this yields a higher level of ownership of policy decisions than their counterparts in other states possess. That ownership in turn generates obligation. Under such a system citizens are forced to cooperate with their fellow countrymen in order to reach any decision at all, and the repeated necessity of persuading and being persuaded cultivates a civic responsibility towards them rather than mere tolerance of them. On this argument direct democracy is superior precisely because it produces the engaged, well-informed and mutually answerable citizenry that self-government requires, where a representative system permits citizens to remain spectators of their own affairs.

Premises

[P1]In a direct democracy every citizen is responsible for the affairs of state and cannot defer to representatives or elites, giving each an incentive to participate and the state a reason to keep voters well educated in public policy. [P2] As a result, citizens have greater ownership of policy decisions and a civic responsibility toward the fellow countrymen with whom they must cooperate. [C] Therefore, because it engenders civic responsibility, direct democracy is superior to representative democracy.

Counter-arguments

Direct democracy requires substantial amounts of investment in public education. Not every citizen would be starting from the same knowledge base or have a similar desire to take on responsibility for the complex affairs of the state. In a modern state with competing demands for public spending there is no guarantee that taxpayers would want to meet this heavy cost or that individuals would be willing to pay this personal price.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Being unable to defer to representatives creates a duty, not an incentive, and the premise further assumes the state would respond by educating voters — a hoped-for consequence rather than anything the system secures, and one the counter notes taxpayers may decline to fund. [Rejecting P2] Greater ownership of decisions is compatible with lower participation: where every question falls to the citizen, most people predictably vote on few of them, and a system in which the engaged minority decides is not obviously more civic than one in which representatives can be held to account.