i've lived in america for 5 years in my whole life, but i feel that i'm very familiar with american politics (everyone is), and the other places i've lived (russia and israel) have really good excuses for their occasional tyrannies.
i was pretty sure that you were talking about america because you kept talking about moving to europe, suggesting you didn't already live there. where do you live then, that is not democratic enough for you? hey, i told you what city i live in. :>
>"it would atleast be the people directly deciding..."
i think you're splitting thistle, but this is a pol. forum so i suppose its the place for it. it seems to me that if outcome p is equal to outcome q, you should pick the easier one and be happy you had a choice.
>"On important issues, the people are called to a vote by means of referenda"
correct me if i'm wrong, but i think this holds true in russia, israel, and america also. last november some of my friends who are citizens got to vote on things like gay marriage and whether or not a new school should be built and something about parks. the same sort of thing happened all the time in israel.
also, in america and israel, groups of citizens often propose laws. in both instances, it is required that a member of the legislature formally presents the legislation. or is there some difference between that and what you meant?
>"the answer to size is federalism"
ok, so how would clearly national issues be decided? in your theoretical direct democracy, how is war declared? how are new ministries formed? how are bureaucrats appointed? i still imagine that some autocratic power must be vested in some individual, or otherwise citizens would have to vote on dozens of pieces of legislation (between local, federal, and national items) every year. how can someone who works 40+ hours a week and has 2 kids and a marriage and occasionally enjoys hobbies other than politics be expected to be an informed voter? i can't imagine it.
>"they'll atleast be making decisions of their own"
i suppose you're just optimistic on this issue while i find myself pessimistic. i imagine your average citizen (of any country i've ever been to) would lose interest within a decade or two and no longer take the time to inform themselves about the issues, and voting would become a terrifically random process...
>"care to elaborate?"
i think that in a completely direct democracy, your average country would be enormously vulnerable to current events. fast decision making is a very bad thing when it involves countries. but to anyone who isn't paid to pay attention to politics, spending a couple weeks pondering issues of tax codes or farming subsidies would be too much to ask for, and they would go to the polls (if at all), totally bored and uninterested.