Direct Democracy cuts through all the crap

reply to post by Honor93


But you would oppose it by writing a few letters and if it passed despite opposition, what are you able to do? Protest? If your happy with that then fine. I would rather have a more direct way to deal with it.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. Freedom is the sheep with a loaded gun.

You really want "The People of Walmart" having a direct voice in how you will function and live? How about we work on getting the best and the brightest into that position?

reply to post by Honor93

votes are bought every election cycle and everyone knows it.

Representatives are also bought every vote and everyone knows it. The question is, which is harder, to bribe a few hundred representatives, or millions of ordinary people?

i'm betting you couldn't find 10% of ATS users who agree the technology is sufficient for what you propose. And as for security on the internetz ??? you must be joking bank transactions secure ??? in which country ?? certainly not the US and i can provide example after example after example, even before Anon joined the party.

The technology to make e-democracy secure is here. In 2007, there were just 537 cases of suspected loss of money through unsecured internet banking. 537 votes out of millions would not be enough to change outcome of any vote.
If you want to get paranoid, dedicated secured terminals in town halls and SMS autentification can make the process virtually unhackable. Intruders would have to break into such terminals and steal peoples phones in order to gain a few votes.

all the rest are conflicts, not wars ... until you understand the difference, i don't expect you to understand the rest. good luck in your discoveries.

Semantics.. My point still stands.

first, you are assuming everyONE has internet access (no where close my friend)

Easy fix - make it so. Its 2011.

second, you are also assuming ppl have time to invest in learning about every piece of legislation proposed (not so in this country and that doesn't automatically mean we don't care)

If you really dont want to do so, but you dont want your vote to go to waste, you can appoint a representative (proxy). The point is, you dont have to, like it is now. If people do not want to vote themselves, the system naturally reduces to representative one. But they can change it at any time, for any proposed law.

Liquid democracy, or direct democracy with delegable proxy, would allow citizens to choose a proxy to vote on their behalf while retaining the right to cast their own vote on legislation. The voting and the appointment of proxies could be done electronically. The proxies could even form proxy chains, in which if A appoints B and B appoints C, and neither A nor B vote on a proposed bill but C does, C's vote will count for all three of them. Citizens could also rank their proxies in order of preference, so that if their first choice proxy fails to vote, their vote can be cast by their second-choice proxy.

These issues have been all already thought through and resolved long ago, just google "E-democracy" or similar for models of elecronic direct democracy and decision making systems. Its not a new idea, its as old as the internet itself. See my link above.

the simple lack of voter turn out, voter participation in the community and total lobbyist control is exemplary of the dire situation regarding non-participation by those endowed and expected to "care".

I think many people are disappointed with having to vote always corrupt representatives, as well as having to artificialy conform their political opinions into mainstream ideologies and parties of the available candidates. That would change with direct democracy. No need to conform to a party or politician to express your political will.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93

 

But you would oppose it by writing a few letters and if it passed despite opposition, what are you able to do? Protest? If your happy with that then fine. I would rather have a more direct way to deal with it.

edit on 25-11-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

this is just an argumentative statement, nothing more.
in your version, IF my opinion wasn't the "majority" opinion, it wouldn't even get heard let alone action.
in your version, IF the majority opinion supports this legislation, i have -0- recourse.
in the Constitutional version, we both have recourse regardless the majority opinion.

you are simply imagining a "more direct way to deal with it" ... one, which is futile, if your opinion isn't part of the majority, as you yourself describe.

reply to post by Maslo

and the answer to this is ... none of the above.

The question is, which is harder, to bribe a few hundred representatives, or millions of ordinary people?

and personally, from learning history, i'd go with easier to bribe the millions of ordinary people ... it is historical precedent.

those "representatives" who are not so easily bribed are usually made to disappear from the chess board. need examples ???

2007 ??? there wasn't then and there isn't now any majority using internet banking ... fail.
you think the last 5 yrs of inflated personal ID theft hasn't changed that perspective just a bit? suppose skimmers aren't a problem either, right?

nah, forget the fact that the mortgage/broker/writer/businesses randomly dump your (client) personal information on any available street corner. oh, and let's discuss how those Drs keep your personal info safe too, eh? [do ignore the HIPAA rules, you know the law forbidding such activities]

technology has advanced leaps and bounds but it is far from acceptable protocols necessary for elections.
when that changes, perhaps my opinion may also but until then, nothing is safe, secure or private on the internet.

no offense, but if you can "see" ways to subvert the system before it's even used, it is a hopeless platform.
kinda like the "hanging chad" fiasco ... do you remember that one?

why would you assume i desire to be "paranoid" ??
just discussing the facts here ... does this make you uncomfortable?

War and conflict are just semantics ??? surely you jest
wow, my heart bleeds for those who cannot or will not see the reality before them.
unless we are "at war" (as declared by Congress), you had no point on which to stand.

fix it ?? well ok, i'll have 3 please ...
one for each of the concerned, voter eligible adults with whom i share ... you got extras ready to go ??
[well if not, just send cash and i'll take care of it ]

If you really dont want to do so, but you dont want your vote to go to waste, you can appoint a representative (proxy). The point is, you dont have to, like it is now. If people do not want to vote themselves, the system naturally reduces to representative one. But they can change it at any time, for any proposed law.

This ^ ^ ^ has got to be the most inside-out, backasswards, conundrum that you've presented so far ... you want to change our representative system (because it doesn't work) and at the same time, "If people do not want to vote themselves, the system naturally reduces to representative one" ... so, the system naturally reduces to what you've deducted is less than acceptable --> interesting perspective indeed.

btw, such an 'old' idea that has yet to see the light of day should give you pause. it does me.
and voting by electronic proxy is a ridiculous proposal considering it takes the VA an average of 5yrs to delete the deceased/dead from their computer systems.

expressing your political will and effecting valuable change in the world are not synonymous.
your vision of synchronicity only happens in the virtual world of imagined perceptions, not reality.

reply to post by Honor93

and personally, from learning history, i'd go with easier to bribe the millions of ordinary people ... it is historical precedent.

There is also philospohical question - is open bribing of ordinary people in direct democracy even bribing? Contrary to representative system, when representatives should vote as their voters want, and secretly bribing them to do otherwise is a fraud on voters (thats why its bad), bribing voting people themselves to change their opinion voluntarily is far less immoral IMHO (if it even is). Who is defrauded in such case?
Even if there was such "corruption", ordinary people will benefit from it financially, and not a few corrupt representatives. They will also be aware of it and do so voluntarily, since secretly bribing millions of people is impossible. Sill better than the status quo, even in worst case scenario.

those "representatives" who are not so easily bribed are usually made to disappear from the chess board. need examples ???

Another example why direct democracy is better - it is far easier to make dissapear a few representatives than millions of ordinary people.

2007 ??? there wasn't then and there isn't now any majority using internet banking ... fail. you think the last 5 yrs of inflated personal ID theft hasn't changed that perspective just a bit? suppose skimmers aren't a problem either, right?

Skimming is only a problem with credit cards, not internet banking, which uses multiple channel security.
I dare you to think of a way how to hack voting account with dedicated protected townhall servers, screenname + password, SMS TAN and encrypted digital signature security. Contrary to popular opinion, hacking a physically guarded system with good multiple channel security is very hard, if not impossible. Absolute security does not exist, but I would say it is more secure than classic paper voting, which can also be manipulated.
You can also make stand-alone network for e-government physically disconnected from the internet, just like the military has done.

no offense, but if you can "see" ways to subvert the system before it's even used, it is a hopeless platform.

I cant see such ways now. And if it will be subverted, we will learn from it and fix it.

fix it ?? well ok, i'll have 3 please ... one for each of the concerned, voter eligible adults with whom i share ... you got extras ready to go ??

Sure, I think that the cost of basic internet access (around 15 dollars per month over here) is so low nowadays that the government would be able to pay it for anyone who wants easily. At least here it is, I think in the US it will be even cheaper.

And with my more secure proposal, internet is necessary only in townhalls with dedicated public e-gov computers, no need to pay it for all people to have at home.

This ^ ^ ^ has got to be the most inside-out, backasswards, conundrum that you've presented so far ... you want to change our representative system (because it doesn't work) and at the same time, "If people do not want to vote themselves, the system naturally reduces to representative one" ... so, the system naturally reduces to what you've deducted is less than acceptable --> interesting perspective indeed.

Yes, with the status quo you HAVE to appoint a representative and CANNOT vote directly even if you wanted to, with my system you CAN appoint him, but does not have to, and you can always override his vote on a specific issue. Not even talking about that you can appoint anyone, not just from few selected candidates. Big difference.

reply to post by Maslo

hopefully we can agree on this point ... even philosophically ... bribery on either side is wrong.
governing yourself should require no bribe from anyone.
to "choose the better of both evils" ... is no choice at all.

we would disagree on your premise of bribery being a financial windfall for the masses.
in today's world, that activity is often referred to as extortion (also illegal)

since secretly bribing millions of people is impossible

to this i say, really??
you don't suppose the Federal Reserve could qualify as such? or maybe the entirety of the Social Security System (including the rip-offs over the years)? or perhaps the persistent failure of Congress to produce a balanced budget ?? (even though they retain the same or a better level of pay, full benefits and pension) ... nahhh, none of those could be considered mass bribery

i do not and will not ever condone governmental assassinations ... regardless how many ppl are involved.

Skimming is only a problem with credit cards, not internet banking, which uses multiple channel security.

wrong ... skimmers are used on ATM machines which capture bank information ... yes, credit cards can be compromised equally but banks are far from immune.
regarding the internet, (some of the most secure sites available) have been compromised (see Anon antics for examples) ... for you to think a digital election platform would have any greater security is just plain naive.

i don't accept your challenge because i don't hack ... not even for fun ... those days were looooooong ago and i'd prefer they stay that way.
let's just say the movie War Games was enough to rattle my cage permanently.

look, you can devise whatever hypothetical system you want, but putting it into action isn't hypothetical and in this case, digital elections haven't even been tested let alone proven. In other words, don't tell me, show me.

we will learn from it and fix it

well, if that's true, what's the delay?
our election system has been abused, subverted, openly dismissed, challenged in court and several other things over the years but yet, even though we know it's broken, do tell ... where, when and who is gonna fix it?

don't know where you are but my basic internet service is $65 monthly ...
not sure why you think it's cheaper here but i'm inclined to ask.
cheapest i've ever had service was $40/month and that was back in the 90s.

And with my more secure proposal, internet is necessary only in townhalls with dedicated public e-gov computers, no need to pay it for all people to have at home.

ummmm, townhalls aren't available 24/7 and ppl have obligations that usually keep them occupied long after 4/5pm ... how would you propose this 2/3 quorum be achieved based on a non-participating public ??

Yes, with the status quo you HAVE to appoint a representative and CANNOT vote directly even if you wanted to, with my system you CAN appoint him, but does not have to, and you can always override his vote on a specific issue. Not even talking about that you can appoint anyone, not just from few selected candidates. Big difference.

this makes even less sense than when you began this conversation.

so, if a region elects a representative, how many votes is that rep now serving as proxy ??
what happens when the # of residents changes ??

does it become criminal for a person to delay reporting changes to election authorities and what happens when a medical issue intervenes and renders a person unable to participate (they have no designated proxy or whomever is unavailable) does that compromised person simply lose their vote/voice all together?

what happens when a voter decides to sue the state for infringing on their right to exercise said vote?
(for any number of reasons)

what happens when some region elects a representative then finds themselves continually over-riding their vote yet still have to foot the bill for his/her inept service ??? seriously, what has changed?
oh yeah, they're (taxpayers) doing the leg work, they're (taxpayers) doing the voting work and they're (taxpayers) paying the bill ... so, how is this better?

look, i'm not trying to bog you down with unimportant issues.
you said this concept has been thought out and re-hashed and is ready to roll ... so, please, answer away and maybe my opinion will sway but as it stands, i don't see this working well for anyone except the elites.

reply to post by Honor93

you don't suppose the Federal Reserve could qualify as such? or maybe the entirety of the Social Security System (including the rip-offs over the years)? or perhaps the persistent failure of Congress to produce a balanced budget ?? (even though they retain the same or a better level of pay, full benefits and pension) ... nahhh, none of those could be considered mass bribery

Who is bribed? Who benefits? The minority of financial elites. Ordinary people are not bribed and dont benefit, but are instead damaged by those things.

wrong ... skimmers are used on ATM machines which capture bank information ... yes, credit cards can be compromised equally but banks are far from immune.

Yes, but ATM is not multiple-channel secured internet banking. Even if skimmers captured your name + password, they need an unique code sent through SMS (SMS TAN) for each login and each vote. Without your phone, login details are worthless, just like with internet banking. That is the basis of multiple channel security. Someone can steal your phone. Someone can learn your login details. But to both steal your phone and learn your login details at the same time is far less likely.

let's just say the movie War Games was enough to rattle my cage permanently.

Thats a movie, its far from what is really possible.

look, you can devise whatever hypothetical system you want, but putting it into action isn't hypothetical and in this case, digital elections haven't even been tested let alone proven. In other words, don't tell me, show me.

www.edemocracy-forum.com...

don't know where you are but my basic internet service is $65 monthly ... not sure why you think it's cheaper here but i'm inclined to ask. cheapest i've ever had service was $40/month and that was back in the 90s

Czech Republic. The cheapest DSL (1 mbit/s, limited) is $15 a month, converted into dollars.

ummmm, townhalls aren't available 24/7 and ppl have obligations that usually keep them occupied long after 4/5pm ... how would you propose this 2/3 quorum be achieved based on a non-participating public ??

Rooms with e-gov computers can be available even 24/7, like internet caffees are now. And electronic vote time on a given issue can last longer than classic voting, say a week or two.

so, if a region elects a representative, how many votes is that rep now serving as proxy ?? what happens when the # of residents changes ??

Regions would not elect a representative. Individual people would elect their representative.

Liquid democracy, or direct democracy with delegable proxy, would allow citizens to choose a proxy to vote on their behalf while retaining the right to cast their own vote on legislation. The voting and the appointment of proxies could be done electronically. The proxies could even form proxy chains, in which if A appoints B and B appoints C, and neither A nor B vote on a proposed bill but C does, C's vote will count for all three of them. Citizens could also rank their proxies in order of preference, so that if their first choice proxy fails to vote, their vote can be cast by their second-choice proxy.

does it become criminal for a person to delay reporting changes to election authorities and what happens when a medical issue intervenes and renders a person unable to participate (they have no designated proxy or whomever is unavailable) does that compromised person simply lose their vote/voice all together?

I dont understand the first question.

The same thing happens like if a medical issue renders a person unable to vote in current election. If a person has no proxy, he/she loses the vote. But since voting would take longer, it is far less likely to be compromised the whole time.

what happens when a voter decides to sue the state for infringing on their right to exercise said vote?

The same thing what happens now.

what happens when some region elects a representative then finds themselves continually over-riding their vote yet still have to foot the bill for his/her inept service ??? seriously, what has changed? oh yeah, they're (taxpayers) doing the leg work, they're (taxpayers) doing the voting work and they're (taxpayers) paying the bill ... so, how is this better?

Why would rational people chose a representative, even payed representative, and then override him all the time, and keep him?
If he proves to be incompetent, they can unappoint him at any time, and vote directly, or chose a different one.

Originally posted by Maslo
To corrupt direct democracy law voting process, you would have to bribe millions of people. While theoretically possible, in practice its impossible. I would say that corporation that bribes millions into voting as it wants deserves the cake.

Just because you champion an idea doesn't mean you have to be naive about it. Corruption would be rampant in a Direct Democracy; just as it is in any form of Government.

Bribery would be accomplished in a similar fashion as it is done today; think of the Federal-Aid Highway Act. Where the money/power brokers (the Federal Government) can effectively bribe via grants and/or withholding "aid" to States that don't wish to tow the Federal line. This has been seen in legal age-limit to purchase alcohol, seat-belt laws, helmet-laws, etc.

What is to stop that in a Direct Democracy? From one region (as in a Direct Democracy the concept and sovereignty of the State would have to be abolished or just be in name only) to the next, holding each other ransom to push through a law that the "majority" wants?

Even if States were to remain -- what is to say that the one state doesn't become more powerful than another? Texas, New York, California, Florida and Illinois would basically become the political base for all of a Direct Democracy; negating the other 45 states. Wyoming would be at the whim of the whole.

This is also why the comparison to the Switzerland model is disingenuous at best. This thread highlights the complete lack of knowledge to what our Federal system is, why it was designed this way, State Sovereignty, dissemination of democracy to the lowest levels, the original concept of a "common" House and an "aristocratic-esque" Senate (well not anymore -- States are no longer represented at the Federal level), and on and on.

It also highlights how those that sit in power are about to manipulate and push around an anemically educated people.

ETA: The above is a generalization and not directed specifically unto any one person in particular; please take it as such.

internet voting would be trustworthy for sure

direct voting would terrify me, even if trustworthy, you would have ditto heads voting directly !!!! the horrors !!!!

and who decides what goes up for a vote, and when ?

that's the flaw

you'd still have a procedure choke point for the power brokers to manipulate

Originally posted by Honor93
this is just an argumentative statement, nothing more.
in your version, IF my opinion wasn't the "majority" opinion, it wouldn't even get heard let alone action.
in your version, IF the majority opinion supports this legislation, i have -0- recourse.
in the Constitutional version, we both have recourse regardless the majority opinion.

you are simply imagining a "more direct way to deal with it" ... one, which is futile, if your opinion isn't part of the majority, as you yourself describe.

In both versions you have to accept whatever someone else settles upon. They are both constitutional so anything that isn't constitutional can be reviewed and thrown out by the judicial branch. Remember I said that all the checks in place would remain.

Originally posted by daskakik
Remember I said that all the checks in place would remain.

edit on 26-11-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Until there is a vote to remove it.

Welcome to tyranny of the majority.

As a complete side, who would get to define a 'majority'? Would it be 50%+1 of the voting block or 50%+1 of the actual votes cast? Or would this be changeable by vote?

How would you vote on multiple answer votes?

How would you limit the power of the majority?

How would you stop the majority of changing the Constitution on whims?

How would you stop corruption?

Who would be accountable for what?

How would you maintain relations with foreign countries when there is zero stability in the voting block?

Etc, etc, ad naseum. What part of this has been tried and failed do people not grasp?

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by daskakik
Remember I said that all the checks in place would remain.

edit on 26-11-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Until there is a vote to remove it.

Welcome to tyranny of the majority.

You can give the citizens the power to strike down laws without giving them the power to make constitutional amendments. As Honor93 pointed out in a previous post the current system has that covered.

As a complete side, who would get to define a 'majority'? Would it be 50%+1 of the voting block or 50%+1 of the actual votes cast? Or would this be changeable by vote?

How would you vote on multiple answer votes?

How would you limit the power of the majority?

How would you stop the majority of changing the Constitution on whims?

How would you stop corruption?

Who would be accountable for what?

How would you maintain relations with foreign countries when there is zero stability in the voting block?

Etc, etc, ad naseum. What part of this has been tried and failed do people not grasp?

All good questions. I think the answer to many is what I stated above. The majority just is not given that much power.

reply to post by daskakik


You have yet to provide a credible reason as to why the majority will not be able to take power.

What is given is irrelevant. Ask the current congress.

What the maximum they can take will be the only defining factor.

As the majority will be 'the power' in a direct democracy, they will be able to take whatever powers they like.

They will just put it to vote.

There will be no law that will protect you, no line in a Constitution...nothing. As all of those will be changeable by vote.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by daskakik

 

You have yet to provide a credible reason as to why the majority will not be able to take power.

What is given is irrelevant. Ask the current congress.

What the maximum they can take will be the only defining factor.

As the majority will be 'the power' in a direct democracy, they will be able to take whatever powers they like.

They will just put it to vote.

There will be no law that will protect you, no line in a Constitution...nothing. As all of those will be changeable by vote.

Why would this be? Placing and amendment in the constitution that allows the citizens to contest laws passed by congress and nothing else would leave almost the the exact same system that is in place today.

reply to post by peck420


Constitution is not changeable by representative vote now?

reply to post by Maslo


It is not impossible to change it is very hard to change. Why? Because it is very hard to get the consensus required to change.

With direct democracy, that is all void.

It will start with a creep, voters can turn down laws. Then it will slowly expand, as the current law makers will cater to the voter majority just to get laws to pass. At that point the laws being passed will very much be at the whims of the voter majority.

As soon as that happens, the voter majority would have the effective power of writing the laws.

Game over.

reply to post by Maslo

who -> depends on the year and situation ... each program i mentioned has been wielded as a manipulative weapon since their inception (including Congress).
and in each instance, the Congress, their handlers, the bankers and the Rothchild family specifically are all beneficiaries ... the Rothchilds even declared "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" ... and "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class."

this is a classic example of manipulation and bribery of the masses ... the "magician" who trades your gold (or sweat equity) for an illusion called currency. Our personal (sweat) equity is quite tangible and that's why we're "sold" at birth and groomed continuously to join the MIC (you have debts to pay) ... your personal equity is traded for an IOU the moment you are born. the IOU is called a Certificate of Birth. (there will be a bond # on the bottom of it and the newer ones even have a bar code)
in case you missed it ... the masses are bribed from birth with ... da da dah ... the illusion of freedom.
the others are self explanatory should you choose to investigate them.

look, until it can be proven secure, i don't care how many layers are involved, it can be broken.
remember, if man creates it, man can also destroy (in this case, infiltrate) it ... that is nature my friend.
i'll reserve definitive opinion until some of these new photo deposits get 'lost' or abused or confused or redirected or whatever. (cause it's bound to happen)

Thats a movie, its far from what is really possible.

true for when the movie was released but i assure you much more can be achieved today with a lot less effort. hence, i'm out.
you do realize ppl are actually paid to consistently compromise weak links right? (just checking)

directing me to a forum of discussion isn't proof of anything other than a discussion.
i did suggest a proven test model is worthy consideration ... got a link for that?

DSL ?? well ok, that's better cause i'm on fiber ... haven't had DSL for awhile.
but, come to think of it, even in a pkg deal it was still closer to $25
IMHO, again i blame the corporates & bankers ... profits, profits, profits ... don't give back to the community who provides those profits ... you sure are lucky at that rate ... but honestly, it should be lower for all of us. They profit plenty already.

Rooms with e-gov computers can be available even 24/7, like internet caffees are now. And electronic vote time on a given issue can last longer than classic voting, say a week or two.

i'm presuming these would be unattended so questions of privacy enter my mind and also how is eligibility verified ??
some persons are turned away at the voting booth for a myriad of reasons, how does digital differentiate between eligible and non-eligible participants ??

individual ppl elect their own rep ?? am i understanding this correctly?
how would that work in terms of Bill debates ??
so, 400+ seldom agree but you think 300million would stand a better chance of any reasonable progress??
that's a scary thought if OWS is any kind of example.

see, i don't care for the whole proxy concept ... everything valuable goes out the window.
privacy, legitimacy, community involvement --> disappear into the wind.
corruption, coercion, extortion, threats would be abundant in such a program and i thought the aim was to eliminate those components.

the question you don't understand, allow me to re-phrase ... family of 4 (all voters w/2 proxies only assigned - kids just turned 18) ... proxy A is unavailable for parent A who is unconscious or comatose from a recent accident ... now, election supervisors will handle parent As vote how exactly ??

no proxy available and parent A is incapacitated ... does parent A lose their vote/voice ??
and, would parent B be liable for criminal consequence for not reporting such information.
(kinda like voting in the name of a dead person or fictional character - also illegal but done often)

can't answer your question because we seem to be doing it regularly and i still don't know why

random changes like you suggest with a rep can only lead to mass confusion.
there has to be limits.
knowing the poor cyber maintenance the VA uses, i find it less than acceptable that such a system would work well for anyone, especially those who make last minute changes.
(and there is always a few - even at 1% that's still 3 million votes).

reply to post by daskakik


You can repeat that all you want.

It does not answer the question of the inevitable.

What happens when the voter majority has enough power to change the laws?

It will only be a matter of time. If nothing can get passed unless it has voter majority (if it doesn't it will be blocked), the laws and edicts being passed may as well just get written by the majority.

At that point, they will be able to change whatever they like when they like.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by daskakik

 

You can repeat that all you want.

It does not answer the question of the inevitable.

What happens when the voter majority has enough power to change the laws?

It will only be a matter of time. If nothing can get passed unless it has voter majority (if it doesn't it will be blocked), the laws and edicts being passed may as well just get written by the majority.

At that point, they will be able to change whatever they like when they like.

You mean like congress and indirectly like corporations can.

You don't seem to understand the mechanics. Congress decides what passes and the citizens ignore it or contest it. Much will be ignored some will be contested but not get the majority and only the laws that are obviously not in the best interest of the people will be blocked because only those would get a majority vote. That is all this element of direct democracy has the power to do.