----Any time greater than 50% +1 is used, the small majority of the top control all the decisions.

This is exactly the opposite of the truth. If we were given liberty except by consensus of the public (75%, 80%, 90%), then laws would only be in effect if that percentage of the population saw value in them. A simple majority leads to the two party system, and a two party system can pass just about any law WHEN THEY ARE IN POWER. When the power balance switches, the old laws don't go away. We simply get a new set of laws, and retribution is the flavor of the day.

If you wish to make something illegal... which in effect is the authorization to use force to combat it... it is COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC to assume that a slim majority can enforce their will on the minority without causing a partition in society.

We have the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech, but at any time... according to our constitution... if 66% of congress agrees (plus ratification), those rights can be removed. Giving this authority to highly interested elected officials only compounds the reactionary element in society.

51% must not be used as a justification for tyranny... and it is. Look around... in the real world. Should the car you drive or the food you eat be determined by the majority? There are very few instances where a slim majority should be allowed to impose their will on the minority. This is the intellectual domain of the conqueror and the subjugated.

Government MUST exist by the CONSENSUS of the people. Of the people, by the people, and for the people... not 51% of them. All of them.

Any system that relies on majority rule is barbarous... there are more of us than there is of you, so we can enforce our will upon you.

You could argue that this is the law of nature, but society is supposed to rise above this dogma of force. Name a clearly beneficial law that would not draw a consensus (80%+) from the public. Murder? Rape? Theft? Treason? Arson? Fraud? Laws against these are clearly beneficial to society, and the percentage of society that would enact these laws is very close to 100%. Government by consensus is the only justifiable use of government, because government is force. We must be conservative when we authorize the use of that force.

Drop below 80% and you get to all the laws that, on analysis, have major detriments. This is BECAUSE there is no consensus. And for the privilege of forcing the minority to play by our rules, we get police corruption, disrespect for law, black markets, gang violence, and all manner of 'unintended consequences'

For society to operate, that society must be able to enact some rules. The farther from consensus that you get, the more people will fight the system. At 90%, you could potentially have 9 people imposing their will on the 1, but with a majority rule, you put yourself in the position of having almost half the society being against a "justified" use of force.

When there is a slim majority in favor of a new piece of legislation, we must ask... why don't the other 40% agree? History has shown that those 40% have been right in an astonishing amount of cases.

Representatives
Put a good man in a position of power, and there is a good chance you will corrupt him. Indeed, many people are pristine of character simply because they have never been tempted by the allure of power. Lord Actin said it best. Power corrupts.

It is naive to assume that we can elect good people when we have been trying to do just that for the past 300 years. There was, supposedly an incorruptible man born about 2000 years ago, but he'd be unelectable now anyways.

People in a triplet will operate in their own self interest. If Barack Obama was in my triplet, and I wanted to win, I would vote him out. The more triplets you go through, the higher the likelihood that the participants are operating in self interest according to game theory. Barack Obama would never get that far.

Plus, the triplet system is still vulnerable to political parties, who will flood the system with those whose political motivations align with the organization.

The answer to electing good representatives is to elect a greater number of them. The greater the number of representatives, the less effective it becomes to corrupt or bribe any individual. The proper number of representatives for the USA is three hundred million. No Less.

We are, as history will attest to, both the beauty and the beast. When we are given power, we do not use it wisely. Those who wish to acquire a position of power tend to be those who will make use of that power. A great nation must resist the temptation to interfere with the liberties of men, but representative systems tend to serve the elite, because they centralize power.

No power centralization. Direct Democracy. One man... one vote. I cannot see the heart of a man, or his motivations. I am at a loss when it comes to deciding between a war-monger and a socialist. I know where I stand on the issues, but I am a poor judge of men. I have been betrayed by my best friend, completely by surprise, in the most horrible way. If I cannot trust my appraisal of a friend I have known for years, how am I supposed to, in good conscience, elect a man I do not know to a position of power over my fellow man.

If you believe you are a great judge of character, good for you. I can make an intelligent argument for or against gun control, but Obama? Obama is a man, as fallible as any man, and as open to corruption and self-interested self-deceit. I would rather vote on an issue than a man, because men of power have always disappointed me when I care to actually examine their actions.

I would trust Ron Paul, for example... but only so far. I must ask myself... what if he were offered ten million dollars in speaking arrangements for a small concession. Hell... I wouldn't even trust myself in that case.

If we speak of direct democracy, it must be direct. If we wish it to depart from the tyranny of the past, it must be by consensus.