<p>
In this case, people will either be more motivated to vote, since their vote has a direct effect on the issue, or they will be apathetic about the issue, in which case there is no problem. This is much better than it is now, where people have strong opinions about issues and vote for the representative promising to attain their desired outcome, but where the representatives are powerless to follow through with their promises.</p>
<p>
Yes, it is. You’re arguing about implementation, when you should be arguing about effect, under the assumption it was implemented. It’s an unrelated argument, and thus, a straw man.
I guess the expansion would happen on its own when people are free to vote for any party, since the issues significant to them were already addressed by direct vote. I think, most importantly, idiots would stop voting for representatives altogether out of apathy, for the very reason that the only issues they cared about were already addressed. As of now, you vote for the candidate who supports gay marriage and have to deal with the rest of the package he comes with. And how many people actually pay attention to the rest of the package?</p>