[EM] Does DD make PR obsolete?

[Forest Simmons]

In a recent message Mike Ossipoff made the (uncontroversial) assertion
that we will always need single winner methods, even if Proportional
Representation becomes a reality, and made the observation that in a sense
PR just passes the buck from us to the PR body, who then must make the
single winner decisions.

So far, so good.  But then he goes on to say that Direct Democracy (DD) is
on the verge of making PR obsolete.

Does anybody really think the House of Representatives is about to go the
way of the Kiwi bird?

I'm not sure exactly what kind of DD he is thinking of, but I believe that
most folks (including myself) would rather not be bothered with every
decision of government.  If DD means government by those who have the
leisure and inclination to keep up with all of the options being voted on,
then it means government by atypical citizens.

On the other hand, if it means random samples of voters called to voting
duty on various issues, then I'm all for it. Every citizen should be
willing to take out time for voting duty as well as jury duty from time to
time.  But nobody should have to make a full time avocation out of it.

I have my vote by mail ballot in front of me.  There are a dozen
candidates for mayor of Portland.  The voters' pamphlet supplied by the
League of Women Voters has a little one page write up on each one.  That's
about all we have on the ones that are not supported by big business
interests.  I'd rather vote for one of the ones that wants to do something
to help the homeless, but the local homeless newspaper is non-profit, so
they are not allowed to endorse any candidate.  It makes it difficult to
figure out whom to vote for.

Imagine this multiplied by a thousand.

Forest