Okay this is what I am looking for. Specifically what consequences do you foresee occurring due to this concept? I already considered some negative aspects but what interests me is whether the positives outweigh the negatives.
Take any example we can come up with.
NAFTA, say there was a direct vote on removal from that Agreement. What makes you think the voting population has enough knowledge of the agreement details, economic and trade impact, or just about any other key impact being in that agreement or withdrawing from that agreement would be like? We know that rhetoric on involvement with Canada and Mexico would outweigh business and production movements over the duration where a sudden withdraw would be like dropping a bomb on the markets. Going into or leaving NAFTA suggests picking different winners and losers that the voting public may not fully understand. Forcing them to read the entire bill (with some sort of half assed test) does not cure the complexity of what that impact may be.
Raising taxes on the rich substantially, say there was a direct vote on that item. What makes you think the voting population has enough knowledge of economics and aggregate demand, monetary conditions and policy from the Fed, investor sentiment, and business outlook to make that decision? We know that odds are the feel good aspect to the vote would outweigh any potential impacts from making a sudden change like that. There may even be the false expectation that those who saw their taxes raised would react in a matter the voter thought, did nor did not may not even matter to the feel good aspect of sticking it to the rich 99%'er style.
Gay and Lesbian being able to adopt, say there was a direct vote on that item. What makes you think the voting population will really consider the statistical facts on this matter, probably resorting to belief and religious ideology suggesting no? We know that when looking at a minority of any type and for any reason, there is a stronger likelihood that majority thinking will not consider something outside of conventional norms no matter what facts and statistics are presented. And we are not even talking about how a minority may feel about the result, the majority tends to not care and is happy to marginalize a minority so long as it aligns to ideology.
Going into any war or conflict, say there was a direct vote on that item... perhaps Iran. The voting public will not have all the knowledge of what is going on in Iran, what they are or are not doing, how other nations feel about the matter or if they will participate or join the opposition, nor what would happen long term (in relations, in costs for the war and the veterans likely to be created, in lost lives or impacts to those families,) nor really any other factor you would think would weigh heavily on policy makers. And we are not even talking about how the military might feel about being directed by such a condition.
Take any other example after any shocking event, and odds are the voter will respond in kind just as likely to be in a panic to vote a certain way. Good intentions or otherwise, the results could be detrimental to those in need or dealing with the repercussions of that event. A flood may result in voting for things that may or may not really help, a terrorist attack may see the voter responding in a way that exchanges more liberty for security (ending up with neither,) the next shooting of an innocent and unarmed minority at the hands of the police resulting in the next encounter ending worse.
A single person can be, again can be - not always is, rational and well thought out in how to handle such a decision. Congress and all their ideologies and influences are already painful enough to get action from that is meaningful without all sorts of downstream consequences. You put a direct vote into the mix on a national level and you get very little other than votes driven by emotion, tribalism, who can be marginalized, and without a care in the world about unintended consequences.
