>Democracy in the U.S. could mean more theocracy and fewer civil liberties. But surely the direct democrats don't want that. So how can this direct democracy or consensus model apply to any population with significantly divergent interests or beliefs?
It is, as you suggest, ridiculous to expect that consensus decision making could work for any group of people who have conflicting interests. Imagine a group of employers and employees sitting down around a table trying to decide the next pay rise - by consensus.
Your earlier point about the rights of minorities is one that those who fetishise majority rule seem less than anxious to take up though. It undermines their beliefs I think. 'Cognitive dissonance' or whatever was the terminology.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas