Nah, its just an attempt to explain how optimal democracy can work. One party democracy where people decide from case to case, rather than select one of two parties(or one party in a two sided alliance), is clearly the future for democracy.
Certainly hope not.
What you're describing is a daily lottery, something we in California suffer from with every ballot proposition on every biennial election.
All sorts of nightmares have been imposed upon the taxpayers of this state by the simple expedient of the legislature refusing to do their jobs and creating a ballot proposition to let the mindless emoting masses take the blame.
So California, with a perpetual budget shortfall, votes to spend money on embryonic stem cell research, high speed rail, this thing, that thing, the other thing, the things in-between, and the surrounding things, too. And the legislature, the body duly constructed to carry the legislative debates, gets their special favors and avoids the blame.
Direct democracy is bad. It gives the morons the keys to the car.
Want to fix the system? Start re-imposing responsibility on the voter. Only voters who will be reasonably expected to pay for the programs should be allowed to elect the people who will be making the budget decisions.
With modern technology, sticking with the party system just doesnt make sense at all. Lets create REAL democracy, not just perceived democracy.
The party system works just fine. There are usually two major sides to an issue. A person either wants to allow babies to bemurdered in the womb, or he doesn't. There's no middle ground. He either supported going to war with Japan, or he wanted to run away and hide. Issues usually aren't anywhere near as complicated as the politicians want to pretend they are.
Then again, that last presumes that the people voting are intelligent. Clearly that's not the case, or we wouldn't have elected Clinton, Bush, or Obama.
