Linkey

This is simple - any decision in the country must be made through a referendum. Now, it is possible to perform referendums online, so the humanity has a possibility to build a quite good democracy. I also have an idea, that in a really ideal democracy, one more principle must be implemented: each person should mention the importance of the decision on vote for himself, and this information must be honest. I mean, with modern democracies it is theoretically possible, that 90% will vote for making the remaining 10% slaves. This was impossible if the voters indicated (honestly) on a ten-pointed scale, how important is this decision for themselves.

For me, this is a too simple explanation. I believe that in a theoretical ideal democracy the civil wars are inpossible - the people in different regions of the country would simply vote for some compromise decision.

It seems strange for me, why the American Civil War happened in the 19th century. I mean that, as far as I can see, civil wars and “Smuta” are an attribute of an authoritarian society, not a democratic one. I understand the mechanism of the Time of Troubles in Russia in 1612 or the Three Kingdoms in China: this situation occurs because any aristocrat wants to become a monarch, and the legitimacy of power is determined not by elections, but by the fact that the ruler is in power. Why then did turmoil also occur in the USA? My question is: when the southern states seceded from the northern states and mobilized, was that the decision of the people of those states? Did people in these states vote to secede? Or was secession simply the decision of the ruling governors? I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this.