Editing Direct democracy (section)

==Democratic reform trilemma==
Democratic theorists have identified a [[trilemma]] due to the presence of three desirable characteristics of an ideal system of direct democracy, which are challenging to deliver all at once.  These three characteristics are ''participation'' – widespread participation in the decision-making process by the people affected; ''deliberation'' – a rational discussion where all major points of view are weighted according to evidence; and ''equality'' – all members of the population on whose behalf decisions are taken have an equal chance of having their views taken into account. [[Empirical evidence]] from dozens of studies suggests deliberation leads to better decision making.<ref name="Ross 2011 loc= Chapter 3">{{Harvnb|Ross|2011|loc= Chapter 3 }}</ref><ref name=Stokes1998>{{Harvnb|Stokes|1998}}</ref><ref>Even Susan Strokes in her critical essay ''Pathologies of Deliberation'' concedes that a majority of academics in the field agree with this view.</ref> The most popularly disputed form of direct popular participation is the referendum on constitutional matters.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jarinovska |first1=Kristine |title=Popular initiatives as means of altering the core of the Republic of Latvia |journal=Juridica International |volume=20 |year=2013 |page=152 |url=https://juridicainternational.eu/public/pdf/ji_2013_1_152.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140718002731/http://www.juridicainternational.eu/public/pdf/ji_2013_1_152.pdf |archive-date=2014-07-18 |url-status=live }}</ref>

For the system to respect the principle of political equality, either ''everyone'' needs to be involved or there needs to be a representative random sample of people chosen to take part in the discussion. In the definition used by scholars such as [[James S. Fishkin|James Fishkin]], [[deliberative democracy]] is a form of direct democracy which satisfies the requirement for deliberation and equality but does not make provision to involve everyone who wants to be included in the discussion. [[Participatory democracy]], by Fishkin's definition, allows inclusive participation and deliberation, but at a cost of sacrificing equality, because if widespread participation is allowed, sufficient resources rarely will be available to compensate people who sacrifice their time to participate in the deliberation. Therefore, participants tend to be those with a strong interest in the issue to be decided and often will not therefore be representative of the overall population.<ref>Fishkin suggests they may even have been directly mobilized by interest groups or be largely composed of people who have fallen for political propaganda and so have inflamed and distorted opinions.</ref> Fishkin instead argues that random sampling should be used to select a small, but still representative, number of people from the general public.<ref name="FishkinCh2&3" /><ref name="Ross 2011 loc= Chapter 3"/>

Fishkin concedes it is possible to imagine a system that transcends the trilemma, but it would require very radical reforms if such a system were to be integrated into mainstream politics.