I don't understand this, in a direct democracy all people have the same vote to affect policy, there is no political class? I am not sure how this ties in with dd = amoral? Under DD you might find the old political classes suddenly would find themselves as a (persecuted) minority, the benefits, power, and high life they were used to might be upheaved.
I am not a true follower of IBDD, which forces people to choose which policies they care most about, but I see its arguments and consider it much better than the non DD systems we have now. I lean more on the side of pure DD, but either one falls into the trap you are suggesting, which is if (whatever system of deciding an issue) can result in policy that is amoral/immoral/wrong in the eyes of good values, such as the example of killing babies, can we support that system.
I guess I would ask what system would ensure immoral acts do not happen? Is placing social policy making into the hands of a minority going to protect against this? What if that minority suddenly says its OK. Should we have statutes and high level courts that protect against it (something I suggest could be a protection with a DD system - similar to what we have now)? But who creates those courts and statutes, what if they think killing babies are OK, and what methods are available to change those statutes, there are always methods for society to evolve, even if it is violent rebellion, would those methods ensure against a minority that supports killing babies making new rules?
What I am getting at is I believe one of the safest ways to protect against babies getting killed in this day and age in developed stable countries is some form of DD, because I believe most people don't agree with infanticide. Counter that against the current system where war-mongers can weave their way into controlling positions and cause the death of children at a whim, maybe not in their countries, maybe elsewhere, but if the population were asked should they bomb innocents resulting in the death of children you might get a different solution than happens now.
I would also ask who gets to decide what is amoral/immoral/just plain wrong? You think killing babies is wrong and so do I, but if the majority of society things killing babies is acceptable behaviour (as an example maybe the majority believe allowing those babies to live would put such a strain on the ecosystem that all life would end), then maybe on a social level it is acceptable? We are looking at an extreme example here, but it could be something similar to my above example, if you and I think bombing innocents in the hope of destabilizing enemies is unacceptable, but the majority say it is acceptable, then socially maybe it is acceptable, maybe they are right, maybe those bombs will protect against an attack while being peaceful would result in the majorities (and our) own extinction.
Or to go even softer you and I may think a 6 day work week is immoral but the majority says its OK, whose values are correct?
I feel stored political capital under IBDD might not intrinsically protect minorities basic rights the way IBDD proponents sometimes suggest, I am happy to be shown in practice it does but I feel minorities can still have their rights violated if enough of the population cares enough to violate them, the smaller the minority the larger the chance of oppression. But I understand the theory that it could protect it more than pure DD, and a lot more than what we have now, which for example if you believe is dictated by the will of the uber-rich, means if the uber-rich want to violate minorities rights, it often happens.
But when we talk about this basic rights also have to be defined, there will be times when a minority wants something that goes against the will of the majority, and sometimes the minority should be oppressed, for example if a traditional ethnic group is claiming their traditional rights to hunt an animal, but doing so will cause the extinction of that species, and the majority are strongly against this, I would suggest the majorities wishes should triumph. Its the level though, what is a basic human right, again another value decision, and would they be safer under DD or IBDD or (insert other system here)?
p.s. whether babies or refugees can vote is implementation specific, there is nothing stating under DD/IBDD they are not allowed to vote - that is up to society and how they implement the system. Should clinically insane people vote? criminals with life sentences? Non-residents? All up to society..
Are you referencing ODD (Online Direct Democracy) Party? They have a pretty liberal anti-government rhetoric, not something I agree with and not something I see so much of here at Flux. I have been in communication with the founder or ODD (then Senator Online) since a long time ago, I think he was more politically neutral but has passed the reigns over to others who have stronger views. A pure DD system does not differentiate, although calling out the corruption of the current system, even the corruption of what it means to represent your constituents, is a big argument towards DD.
Indonesia - I am not convinced you would see a swift implementation of Sharia Law, but I do not give my full support for DD to be implemented in developing or less stable countries, although I also do not reject it, they might show up the West if given the chance. I remember an African country (sorry forget which one) that had incredibly harsh genocide and internal conflict, and were able to achieve stability through community level self determination, village courts that focused on reconciliation, etc..
p.s. if you are wanting a simple Yes/No answer to a complex question, sorry you are not going to get one from me