What is Direct Democracy?

Or rather, what would be direct democracy if such a thing might be possible?

Let's try to define it in such a way that would be agreeable to everyone (or almost everyone):

It is a system of decision-making in which the people at large are able to address individual issues directly rather than only being able to vote for representatives who then address the issues for them, which is "indirect" democracy or "representative" democracy, such as exists currently in those countries which are democratic.

A simple example of direct democracy would be a society in which the general population participates in referendum votes on all the issues to be decided, or on many or most of the issues, or on all the major issues.

But there could be other forms of having the people at large decide directly on issues. The referendum system isn't necessarily the only form that direct democracy could take.

Is it "mob rule"? Not necessarily. A system might be possible for allowing direct decision-making by the general population but doing it through an orderly process that is rational and in accordance with civility and mutual respect and which might lead to good decisions and better outcomes than the current representative forms of democracy have done.

Obviously before committing to any form of direct democracy, there needs to be assurance that the system put in place would be orderly and would lead to desirable results rather than chaos.

It is easier to envision direct democracy operating smoothly in a small group as opposed to a nation of millions. But our task here is to consider:

Is Direct Democracy (direct decision-making by the general population) possible or feasible in a large nation, even a nation of hundreds of millions of people?

Is it possible, is it desirable, and what form would it take? This is our subject matter in this blog.