Direct democracy is too time consuming

The argument

The objection to direct democracy here is practical before it is principled, and it turns on a resource that cannot be redistributed. A system in which citizens decide policy themselves is heavily time consuming: it requires that they are willing to engage with the process of governing and to educate themselves on the issues they are deciding. That is not a matter of casting a vote when asked. Understanding the complex real-world impact of a policy decision, including what it costs, whom it affects, what it displaces and how it interacts with what already exists, demands a significant and sustained commitment, and it demands it issue by issue, for as long as the system operates. Proponents of representative democracy argue that many citizens simply do not have the time this requires. A person working long hours, raising children, caring for a relative or holding more than one job does not have spare capacity to dedicate themselves to mastering the process of governing, and no amount of enthusiasm for participation creates it. The demand is therefore met by some people and not by others, and which group a person falls into is determined largely by circumstances outside their control. The consequence is the heart of the objection. A system that distributes influence according to how much time a person can devote to it builds inequality into society rather than removing it. The demographics that have the time and resources to follow every question closely would be put at a systematic advantage: they would be the ones whose arguments are informed, who are present for each decision, and who understand the machinery well enough to use it. They would wield more power and influence over their fellow citizens, not because they were elected to, but because everyone else was occupied. Representative democracy is preferable on this account precisely because it concentrates the time cost of governing in a small number of people whose full-time job it is, leaving the rest of the citizenry an equal say that does not depend on their having hours to spare.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Direct democracy allows citizens to personally make decisions that directly impact on their lives without the obstacle of having to indirectly engage with elected representatives or political parties who may not have their best interests at heart. Through referenda and initiatives people have an increased amount of control over the major decisions that affects their lives. It also ensures that citizens do not have to worry about replacing corrupt or incompetent representatives at an election, as ultimately they have a personal responsibility for key policy decisions.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This effort is worth it so that people can directly participate in democracy.