"Two Sides of the Same Party"

[Whiteronin]

In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Catherine Fitts uses the phrase "two sides of the same party" several times:

https://youtu.be/BvLz1bI2sXU

As far as I can see, it's perfectly obvious that just like any representatives of big business inevitably monopolize and cartelize finally (they understand that it's more profitable for them to cooperate than to compete), the same process occurs with any parties. The only way to solve this problem is direct democracy, at least like in Switzerland - several referendums each year. I really hope that Trump would initiate an all-US referendum asking people to vote on all hot US issues - prohibition of abortions, "gender diversity", foreign policy, cryptocurrencies, etc. This will destroy the illusion that if Americans choose between Harris and Disantis, that means they have democracy.

[caroasi]

I spend a lot of time advocating for direct democracy, but direct democracy is only a small piece of the puzzle. There was a referendum to accumulate gold in Switzerland a few years ago and it failed because big banks advertised against it on television among other reasons.  Gold then proceeded to triple in value, making it the single worst voting decisions I've ever heard of. People are going to have to wise up. One big problem with democracy is it seems to get people thinking they can vote away their personal responsibility. You vote for someone and they solve your problem. No! The problem could just as easily get worse. You have to personally participate in solutions including researching what works and what doesn't.

Acceptance of personal responsibility through personal participation is what is needed more than direct democracy. But to your point though, Europe doesn't do enough. First of all, it is a strongest minority system, not a majority rule system. For most voting topics, voting doesn't actually reach 50% of the population, and in fact in Switzerland it may be that no direct democracy winning vote has reached 50% of the actual population, though I want to do more research on that and I can PM you when I do post about that topic.

Here is an idea you may never have heard of: Allow everyone to directly assign a representative. That representative then keeps them informed about essential issues and negotiates government social contracts on their behalf. The only kind of arrangement that doesn't require UNANIMOUS consent is locals criminal code, which still require at least an actual real popular majority. Obviously the guy you're prosecuting for a crime would not vote for example for their own prosecution, so that cannot really reach 100% agreement in some respect. But financial issues can all require 100% in that if you vote yes you pay for it, and if you vote no then you don't pay for it, except as a compromise, in which case you're still voting yes to a compromise to pay for some things you want and other things you don't. I call this idea a Cooperatie Republic and have a link to a complete idea in my signature.