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

In a direct democracy the affairs of the state are the responsibility of every citizen. They cannot leave them to elected representatives or economic elites. This ensures that every citizen has the incentive to participate and it encourages the state to make sure that every voter has a high level of education of public policy so they can properly dispense their duty. A consequence of this is that it ensures that citizens have a higher level of ownership of the policy decisions that are made compared to their counterparts in other states, and a civic responsibility to their fellow countrymen with whom under this system they are forced to cooperate.

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.