Direct democracy needs too much public education investment

The argument

The objection to direct democracy here is practical rather than principled: it concerns what the system would cost to run properly and whether that cost would ever be met. Direct democracy requires substantial amounts of investment in public education. The reason is structural. If citizens are to decide matters themselves rather than delegate them, each citizen must be equipped to understand what they are deciding, and the affairs of a modern state are complex, spanning budgets, regulation, foreign commitments, and technical legislation. A vote taken by people who have not been given the means to understand the question is not self-government in any meaningful sense; it is the appearance of it. Supplying those means is not a one-off expense. Not every citizen would be starting from the same knowledge base, so the investment required differs from person to person, and the gap has to be closed continuously as new matters arise and new voters reach adulthood. There is also a demand-side problem that money alone cannot solve. Citizens do not have a similar desire to take on responsibility for the complex affairs of the state. Education can be made available, but the time and effort needed to absorb it is a personal price each individual must choose to pay, and there is no guarantee that individuals would be willing to pay it. Both halves of the requirement are therefore uncertain. In a modern state, with competing demands for public spending, there is no guarantee that taxpayers would want to meet this heavy cost, and no guarantee the education would be taken up if they did. Because direct democracy needs a level of public-education investment that is unlikely to be forthcoming, proponents argue, representative democracy is better.

Premises

Counter-arguments

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 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.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] This use of resources is worth it to have an engaged electorate.