What gives you the impression a significant number of Americans support direct democracy?
The fact that most states have at least some degree of it, and the people don't use it to abolish itself in favor of purely representative democracy.
And they all contain the mechanisms by which, if people didn't like them, they could be undone.
> By the same argument, we can conclude most Americans are deeply paranoid about the dangers of direct democracy because the founders of the US were.
No, you can't, because to be “by the same argument”, you'd have to. show that, in a case where it was procedurally possible for the people directly to institute or remove direct democracy, they generally choose to avoid it entirely. Which is exactly the opposite of reality.
And the evidence is that they have it and choose to keep it, since its existence allows them to remove or further limit it should they wish to.
Not sure if we’re agreeing or disagreeing, but to state my position explicitly direct democracy is the final form of decline for civil republican government. After that you’re headed for authoritarianism, be it left or right.
“Should they wish to” is frankly wishful thinking.
You so realize that you are literally making my point that direct democracy has significant support?
> “Should they wish to” is frankly wishful thinking.
I think you are confused about the subject: that they manifestly don't wish to is my entire point.
The last sentence I wrote was perhaps me misunderstanding your phrasing. I’m operating from a prior that direct democracy is very bad, and should be avoided.
Rhetorically what I meant was that “should they wish to” is not a meaningful distinction, since they would never wish not to [operate via direct democracy once that Pandora’s box is opened].
This can be seen especially well with the Supreme Court, which is arguably the single most undemocratic American institution. In the Progressive Era, SCOTUS was castigated by the left for slowing down the reforms, and eventually adopted the "judicial restraint" stance. Then the Civil Rights era came, with SCOTUS often the driving force - and now it was a good thing that it was forcing the hand of state legislatures regardless of popular support or lack thereof. Similarly, when you look at it from the right, the positions were essentially reversed - under FDR the right expected the courts to fight back against populism, in the Civil Rights era the right expected those same courts to defer to state legislatures.
More recently, in the 90s-10s period, it has been on full display - just take any op-ed with obvious partisan bias about any major Supreme Court decision. If the author agrees with it, they will usually exalt the wonders of an unelected body keeping the mob in check. If the author disagrees, then they will rant about how SCOTUS is undemocratic and thwarts the will of the people. Sometimes, the same author will write several op-eds over time, with varying position depending on the case.