Voters in Liechtenstein withdraw state funding from the country's public radio broadcaster

Demonstrates what Direct Democracy can influence

How to get rid of useless Governments, Politicians?

That is the question asked by many unhappy citizens - not only in dictatorships but also in most democracies.
There is of course no perfect solution, as there is no perfect democracy.
But giving the electorate to initiate recall referendums would be a step in the right direction. There would have to be stringent regulations to prevent abuse, a quorum to have a referendum held, then a high hurdle rate of support, maybe two thirds of those in support.
Better still to prevent the need for a recall to arise in the first place.
Direct Democracy on all levels of government would ensure that all political decisions are debated properly and individual politicians are forced to take a measured approach to governing. 
The threat of having all decisions to be subject to the scrutiny by the electorate would prevent any extreme, hasty or one-sided decisionmaking.

Who makes our Laws and Regulations?

Direct Democracy would require that all new legislation and regulation is subject to detailed scrutiny and ultimately would have to be subjected to a referendum if there is not enough transparency or agreement on the issue.

All New Cars Sold in EU to Be Fitted With Data Recording ‘Black Box’

Citizens' Conventions to revive Democracy?

Looks like a simple solution to revive moribund political systems. But there is a much more effective one - it is called a Referendum. No argument about who is taking part, and whether or not the political establishment implements its conclusions - and that is if they even bother to take more than token notice of them.

Citizens' Convention on UK Democracy

Ex-politicians cashing in on their connections?

Ministers should be banned from lobbying for up to five years after leaving office and face possible fines if they break the rules, the anti-corruption watchdog will say this week. Lord Evans, chairman of the committee on standards in public life (The Times, Paywall).

Good idea but Direct Democracy would put another safeguard into place as all political decisions would be subject to an automatic or facultative referendum.

Meaningful Majorities in Referendum

40 years ago a referendum about whether or not to use Nuclear Energy was held in Austria. The power plant was practically ready to go into operation but anti-nuclear activists had backed the government into a corner. As a result it was decided to let the citizens have their say. The result was an extremely narrow majority (50.5%) in favour of not using the finished (!) power plant. This raises the question of what level the qualified majority should be - easy to answer in case of constitutional matters. But not so easy in all other decisions.

Bernie Sanders trolls Republicans for secrecy on healthcare bill

Direct Democracy would require that all new legislation is discussed in public - because of facultative or mandatory referendum that would hang over all policy debates.
Bernie Sanders trolls Republicans for secrecy on healthcare bill by tweeting blank piece of paper

Parliament - a waste of time?

Today's Parliaments churn out so many laws that hardly any representative has time to study the proposals properly - if he cares to do this at all. Requiring to subject all legislation to obligatory or optional referendums would mean that the citizens have a safety valve against this defect of 'representative Democracy'. A lenghty and public debate before a referendum date would also allow for a higher quality scrutiny of new laws.
A bunch of House Republicans admitted that they didn't read the GOP healthcare bill

Turkey Referendum - Fake Democracy wins (again)

Another narrow result demonstrates the worst aspect of Fake Democracy. That important decisions such as constitutional 'reform' (if you can call it that) can be decided with a margin of less than 2% (measured by the percentage that has to flip to the other side)means that there is insufficient backing. The same could have been said about the British Brexit referendum last year - but with the proviso that all the decisions related to the EU had not been made under rules that would have required a qualified majority (two thirds or maybe even 75%).
Erdogan Wins Constitutional “Reforms”, Allowed to Rule Until 2029: Opposition Challenges Vote | MishTalk

Brexit, Scotex - unprincipled Pseudo-Democracy

Lack of clear constitutional principles plays a significant part in the confusion and frustration created by the discussion about Brexit and Scottish Independence. In a proper set-up there would be clear rules as to the circumstances of holding a referendum. There should be the requirement of a significant quorum as well as a clearly-defined process that requires a meaningful support for holding a vote on an issue. above all the holding of a referendum should not be in the gift of the sitting government - this would open the way for abusing any debate for demagoguery.
Queen to give Brexit Bill approval as Nicola Sturgeon 'fails to promise Scotland would remain in the EU after independence'

Nicola Sturgeon calls for 2nd Scottish referendum

We are all for the use of referendums on all levels of government, but there have to be clear rules. Politicians should not be the ones to decide when a referendum is graciously 'conceded' to the citizens. That way is abuse and demagoguery.
Nicola Sturgeon calls for 2nd Scottish independence referendum

Petition - second best

'Should Donald Trump be prevented from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom?' This is a Petition on the UK Government Website and it has attracted more than a million supporters.
But the word petition already leaves a sour taste in the mouth. It tastes too much like asking someone superior and powerful to grant a favor. Much better to give it the legal form of a binding referendum, that way no energy is wasted in signing up and disappointment is prevented. The last thing the reigning Politocracy wants is to be told what to do by the citizens.

Brexit Referendum - Lessons to be learned

Citizens of the UK got a master class demonstrating how a potential referendum can be abused and become a political football. A 'promise' to hold a referendum about the country's future relationship with the EU was not worth the paper it is written on.
At present any referendum that is generously conceded by the governing class it is not really done in the full spirit of giving power to the people. That would only be the case if a referendum would be a permanent part of the political process or could be demanded to be held whenever a qualified number of citizens demand one.
Some may criticise that it is unfair that a small majority makes such a far-reaching decision which could bind the other half of the citizens to a policy their do not agree with.
This is a valid point and any referendum that has far-reaching implications, in particular about a constitutional matter, should require a more substantial quorum to make it binding.
This point conceded one would have to contend with the objection that all the decisions that led the UK to become deeper and deeper integrated into the EU should in turn also have been subjected to a referendum with an equally high quorum hurdle.
As matters stand, the citizens had hardly any say. Even the original referendum about joining the then EEC was based on promises that were never kept.
In any case a referendum is merely being used under duress or used as just another trick to push through policies that the 'Elites' want to pursue can be abused. This is the usual argument against Direct Democracy and while it has the ring of truth to it is is based on a wrong form of referendum.If politicians honestly want to return power to the citizens (or as they always claim: 'Listen to the People') they would not cling to their power and support Direct Democracy and introduce it as binding requirement when any significant political decision is made.

Establishment Politicians hate Referendums

No wonder Jean-Claude Juncker begs EU leaders not to hold referendums...because voters might choose to leave

Reflections on the Brexit Referendum

A narrow result in a referendum about the constitution should always require a meaningful quorum. In most countries election results are regularly decided by the thinnest of margins. But the UK referendum about Brexit leaves a somewhat sour taste as the majority of 52% has defeated a minority of 48%. So there is quite a split among the citizens, and a different result would just have meant that the roles are reversed.

There are several lesson from the whole exercise:

The development of the EU and its institutions proceeded with little regard to the wishes of the electorate. Regular consultations on major steps forward should have been submitted to a referendum in all the member states, with a significant quorum (2/3?) as safety valve.

It should not be at the pleasure of a Politician whether or not a referendum takes place. If we want to live in a proper democracy the consultation of the citizens should be governed by mandatory and predictable rules. Otherwise the often mentioned objection to Direct Democracy - that it can be abused by Governments and referenda become plebiscites - will always have to be taken seriously.

Reflections on the Brexit Referendum

A narrow result in a referendum about the constitution should always require a meaningful quorum. In most countries election results are regularly decided by the thinnest of margins. But the UK referendum about Brexit leaves a somewhat sour taste as the majority of 52% has defeated a minority of 48%. So there is quite a split among the citizens, and a different result would just have meant that the roles are reversed.

There are several lesson from the whole exercise:

The development of the EU and its institutions proceeded with little regard to the wishes of the electorate. Regular consultations on major steps forward should have been submitted to a referendum in all the member states, with a significant quorum (2/3?) as safety valve.

It should not be at the pleasure of a Politician whether or not a referendum takes place. If we want to live in a proper democracy the consultation of the citizens should be governed by mandatory and predictable rules. Otherwise the often mentioned objection to Direct Democracy - that it can be abused by Governments and referenda become plebiscites - will always have to be taken seriously.

Merkel says Brexit Referendum 'Unnessary Risk'

From the Viewpoint of a traditional Top-Down political Operator she may well have a point. Anytime the citizens have a direct say in political decisions there is a 'risk' that the manipulations of party machines will be stopped dead in their tracks.

Two-Party System on the Way out?

The Slow, Inevitable, Collapse of the Two-Party System (OrientalReview)

More important - it does not really matter how many parties compete for your vote, and under what electoral system.The most important change to align politics with the wishes of the Citizens is the introduction of Direct Democracy on all levels of Government.

Just these days the Burghers of Zurich, Switzerland, will launch a referendum against the imposition of higher parking charges in their town. One may agree or not, but they do not have to helplessly accept the diktat from above.

Posting Comments poor Substitute for Direct Democracy

While posting to Media Websites (or phoning in to TV or Radio programmes) might be a good way to let off steam it is a less-than-satisfactory way to participate in the formation of Legislation. Whether it is 100 or 1000 posts, the effect is the same (or should one say the lack of effect?).
Only Initiatives, Petitions and binding Referendums ensure that the will of the Majority of the Voters is respected. And that means that it should not be left to the Governments to decide when a Vote is to be held, and on what issues.

EU: Lack of Democracy appalling

Without taking a view on the ongoing question of how to deal with the Refugee/Migrant Crisis that has several member states in its grip one can say that the way the EU rulers decided to solve (?) the problem has all the hallmarks of a dictatorial Edict.
As is always the case, the citizens of the Union were left without the opportunity to have their say on this crucial decision. Apart from that one has to wonder whether the EU should be allowed to decide this issue in the first place.
The principle of devolution should mean that all legislation is handled at the level of government that can deal with the issue at hand. Only those decisions that do not meet this criteria should be made at the next-higher level of government. If Greece, for example, is unwilling or unable to stop the influx of refugees/migrants than that is its problem. Individual member states may come to its aid if they wish to do so (but only if the citizens agree that their government steps in).
Greece having a disproportionately large army should be more than capable to control its borders. Not doing so just demonstrates a lack of willingness on the part of its leadership.

THE ONLY WAY THAT CITIZENS WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE THEMSELVES HEARD IS BY SUPPORTING DIRDEM - THE CAMPAIGN FOR DIRECT DEMOCRACY - THE WAY THE EU HAS ARRANGED FOR UNION-WIDE PETITIONS TO BE ORGANISED SEEMS TO BE DESIGNED TO REDUCE THE RISK OF INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISIONS OF ITS OFFICIALS TO AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM