Recently, there has been a smattering of newspaper articles and blogs attacking the concept of Direct Democracy.

Some arguments are centered on California's Proposition 8 vote that banned gay marriages in the state. Californians passed the bill 52 to 47. The votes were almost split down the middle concerning the legal structure of marriage, but those for the strict, traditional form of male-female relationships won the day.

However, the state's attorney general is petitioning the state's Supreme Court, because he believes the opportunity to marry is one of the "unalienable rights" granted by the federal constitution and that Proposition 8 is a violation of this constitution. He argues that a state constitution cannot take priority over the federal constitution.

The writers of the newspaper articles and the blogs, each following, what seems to be, the same script argue that in a true Direct Democracy in which the people rule, in a proper election with validated results, the majority vote normally wins and when it does, the dispute should end. They consider the attorney general's actions one of the weaknesses of a Direct Democracy, as the philosophy of DD doesn't address a conflict between a state constitution and the federal constitution. They say "Proposition 8 represents the ultimate failure possible of Direct Democracy and majority rule—the people voting against more freedom rather than for more freedom."

Those against Direct Democracy are typical Establishment wordsmiths; very good with deceptive words. True demagogues. These writers are wrong, because the United States is a representative democracy, not a Direct Democracy. It's a pseudo-democracy, not a true democracy, for common, working Americans are excluded from participating in the decision-making processes of the federal government. A Direct Democacy demands that all citizens participate in the political decision-making processes.

As for the attorney general's argument that the federal Constitution supercedes any state constitution, it doesn't hold water, for in a properly structured true democracy there would be only one Constitution, the one chosen by the people. "states" or "regions," or whatever the smaller geographic of a republic are called, would be governed under the very same constitution.