That tyranny of the majority as a concept hasn't disappeared, and that the arguments against a direct democracy are some of the reasons this nation was founded as a representative democracy.
I do think there are good reasons to have more direct democracy than the founders had (the logistics of it are much better now), but I'd be pretty cautious of the argument that we should do everything that we can get a plurality of the population to support.
It’s less about specifics than approach. IMO, direct democracy is very poor fit for creating or editing laws especially in terms of taxes, but a fine idea for repealing laws.
Several times I have seen something complex where making an informed decision take at minimum several hours of research. Which most voters are obviously not going to do. Most people are at best following their parties lead, which asks the initiative pointless, or more likely making a knee jerk reaction without understanding the details.
Repealing laws on the other hand is something voters can have direct experience with.
Similar issues are in play, but exceptions are generally more difficult to judge.
Arguing that the limit for arsenic in drinking water should be lowered is very different than arguing the limit should be removed. The first needs a detailed analysis to judge, where the second comes down to more fundamental ideas.
Further, if the power is limited to removing legislation then similar rules can be added if it becomes obvious their needed.
It does not work, see how US Constitution amendments got eroded in time to the extent that some practically don't exist anymore in California, for example.
"should not be infringed" gets to "can be regulated" which goes to "practically banned".
Well, historically it's been the rich and landed though that's not a part I'd advocate for keeping.
I actually think a lot of the problems with total direct democracy come not purely from hot tempered reactions of the majority (though that certainly is a problem at times), but from the mere fact that a lot of governing decisions need to get made by someone who really studies the details of a problem closely and makes an informed decision.
Let's say as a society we're making a complicated financial decision (like, is it in our long-term financial interest to build a bridge linking Point A and Point B). That's a very complex decision, where it's extremely hard to pin down with specifics both the costs and the eventual benefits of the bridge.
So, as a society we put together a group that studies the issue in depth and puts together a 100-page report that's the distillation of their research. It nails down the costs and the benefits in about as concise a form as it can be, while still capturing the full complexity of the project.
Now here's the question: what's the process for deciding how to build the bridge? Do we:
- ask everyone in society to read and digest the 100 page report, make their own informed decision, and then vote on the outcome?
- Or do we as ask everyone to select the person they trust to read and digest the report, make an informed decision that would align with their interests, and then we vote for the person we want to make the decision?
I think there's some benefits to each approach that aren't captured by the other. In the former approach there's a lot of redundant work that we're asking from every member of society. It's much easier on each member of the democracy to make an informed decision about selecting a single person to make a decision on their behalf than it is to make an informed decision on the project directly.
Multiply this across every decision at the city, county, state, and federal government and suddenly the decision burden on the individual becomes a really good argument on its own for representative democracy!
I have a solution for this: immediately revocable vote vouchers. You pick your rep from the pool of all people willing to be a representative, and they vote on your behalf until they make a decision you don't like, at which moment you are free to revoke their control of your vote and give that to someone else. We could compensate representatives based on their rolling average of people represented.
You decide who represents you, directly (rather than pooling geographically, which is patently stupid) and representatives are operating with consistent incentive to act in the interest of their direct constituents.
You pick the tool for the job. A planner to run something relating to planning. An engineer running something related to engineering. A scientist to run something relating to science. Domain experts, who have spent the years needed to actually understand the nuances of the problem. Too often we just get the loudest mouth in the room and their gang of friends looking to make their buck.
I do think there are good reasons to have more direct democracy than the founders had (the logistics of it are much better now), but I'd be pretty cautious of the argument that we should do everything that we can get a plurality of the population to support.