I don't think you can know that. For example, I could say culture brings economy and system. If you have a culture of hard work and merit then you will generate a high economy, and whether you have representative or direct democracy you will steer certain ways.

One I think clearer example is a direct democracy can choose to ignore minorities (of any stripe) more, and have more to spend on visible things that help most people, but also allow smaller groups to fall away (or not allow them in at all). I don't know if that's the case for Switzerland, as with wealth comes the ability to mitigate this, but that is the traditional danger with direct democracy.

So basically, it is not a terrible idea like you said, but something that will work(and in my opinion, extremely well) in a highly developed society? And considering how well they are thriving, obviously it is not detrimental at all?

None of your concerns have happened in Switzerland, quite the opposite. I don’t know what you mean by minorities, but in Zürich a third of the population aren’t even Swiss citizens. In Switzerland, everything is extremely decentralized.

Additionally, Switzerland is not a homogeneous culture - the differences between Vaud, Zürich, Ticino etc. are massive.

All I know is Switzerland is a wonderful place, and I believe it is because they never really had a king, but ruled their country together.

> something that will work(and in my opinion, extremely well) in a highly developed society

I don't see the point in changing what I said. I said I think most systems can look good if there's enough money sloshing around.

My point is - e.g. in the US, who also never had a king, most people live in cities. If there were direct democracy then those people could vote for very pro-city policies, and neglect rural. Given there's representational democracy, that's much more difficult, and national rules need to be more balanced.