Infanteer, I'm with you for the most part right up till your micro-political level and avocation of direct democracy.
We live in a society where it seems a good number of parents hardly have enough time for their children, much less to vote for every expenditure of their local government.
It's interesting to note that the two greatest political thinkers of Athens (Aristotle and Plato) thought democracy (Direct Democracy) was the WORST form of government. They equated it to Mob Rule. Neither of those two could be said to be Democrats.
Anyway... getting back to your post.
I'm not sure where you are going with this system of election to government. Do you mean that the governors are selected by lot from those with the right to vote?
There is a lot more to government than just voting, we have to decide what it is we are to vote on, the need for â Å“Xâ ?, â Å“Yâ ? or â Å“Zâ ?, it's benefits and drawbacks it's implementation, funding, structure, purpose. This is the real work of government. It's not the occasional issue vote but all the committee work and investigation and hammering of details long before the proposed legislation ever come to the final vote.
It's not something I would trust to the hands of some randomly selected voter who may or may not have any skill, intelligence or common sense. Who may or may not be capable of management, leadership or vision.
I would argue that the cure for apathy is not direct participation but the perception of direct influence.
I'll bet most people's eyes would positively gloss over were they to be subjected to the intricacies of the work it takes to get a bill into law. However, they do want to feel that they had a hand in getting the person who does want to do the work where he is. They want to be reasonably assured that he will do what they want, that he will vote for their wants instead of some party line like the PM's obedient lap dog.
The introduction of a parliamentary recall would go a long way to creating an accountable parliament. Couple this with a system of Proportional Representation (preferably not a list based system) so that votes cast matter even if your candidate/party of preference doesn't get the most votes. (Is it really democratic when a party that wins only 36.7% of the popular vote gets 41.5% of the seats in parliament?)
Burke advocates exactly the opposite of your proposal for direct democracy. He didn't want the parliamentarian to act on the wishes of the majority but to act for the best of all, and if that meant acting in opposition to the majority, then so be it.
In my mind Burke painted the elected official as someone who upon winning an election was somehow divorced from the voter, given the god-like ability to KNOW what was best... (Gee, didn't Stalin uphold the idea that the Bolsheviks/Vanguard Party was â Å“Acting in the best interest of the Proletariatâ ? regardless of what the masses may have thought?) It doesn't take too long for anyone to realize that politicians really have no more of a clue what is best for everyone than any of the rest of us.
While I will allow that the â Å“Tyranny of the Majorityâ ? is something that aught to be guarded against I would not delegate that responsibility to our governing officials. That is why we have constitutions in civilized societies. It is the social contract as laid out in a constitution that ensures the scope and powers of our government and grants the people their rights. If we need to regain our liberty from the interference of the state then the constitution is where we should enshrine those wishes.