Direct democracy is functional and applicable to every political issue.
Implementation of direct democracy will stop the phenomenon of enforcement of laws ,which are not accepted by the majority , by a government which ,although legally elected ,didn't keep its promises.
Implementation of direct democracy would reduce the phenomenon of civil apathy about politics caused by the complete decoupling from the decision making because of the representative form of the existing regime.
Politics nowdays is so complicated that people cannot really have an opinion.
The main policy orientation of the parties is specific and is expressed consistently by them. With direct democracy there is a danger of losing that consistency.
With direct democracy there is a serious risk of violation of minority rights, as happened with the referendum in California against gay marriages.
In representative democracy there can be non-skilled parliamentarians so there is a similar possibility with direct democracy for non qualified people to make important decisions.
Voters are more likely to make mistakes when voting on candidates than ballot measures because candidates represent bundles of issues and characteristics, while ballot propositions typically involve only a single issue.
The internet nowadays makes it extremely easy for each citizen to exchange ideas and find information on a problem.
With representative democracy we often have cooperation governments so there is no coherent strategy only the resultant of different ones as it happens with the direct democracy.
The risk of violation of minorities? rights in a direct democracy exists but does not appear to be more likely than the risk in the case of the representative democracy.
There are studies that show that violation of minority rights is more likely in direct democracy than in the representative one because of the absence of social accountability in direct democracies.