I believe that direct democracy is a good idea because it gives a stronger voice to the people and allows them to play more of a hand in deciding what they want the governing laws of the society that they live in to be. For example, in 1990 the use of a Referendum allowed citizens to vote on whether or not they agreed with Roe v. Wade and the freedom to have an abortion should one want one; during the election, a strong majority of voters agreed with the outcome of the case and what it represented, and the freedom to choose abortion was turned into a state law in Nevada. This is especially important today, where many states are challenging the case and enacting state abortion bans; Nevada had already decided on the issue before it even was an issue.
While this is an effective means of democracy at the state and city level, it may be more difficult to execute on a national level due to the significantly larger population that it would involve and require. Obtaining enough signatures to even initiate the process would be difficult, though the internet would be a massive help in that area. By the same means, it is also possible that extremist and even jokester groups could bring issues that are not as relevant or even nonsensible to a high level of attention, though that would be worst-case-scenario. The process would be extremely effective in terms of bypassing bipartisan gridlock, as there will always be a majority of votes one way or another (giving more power to the citizens, which will, though potentially having an unequal party representation, show what the majority of citizens want, so long as everyone participated, which is not guaranteed). Meanwhile, disagreements could create a lot of tension within the nation. If the process were implemented on a national level, I do believe that the Supreme Court (or other legislative body) could nullify the voters’ will if they see that the action would do more harm than good to the nation, as a means of checks and balances would still be the best course of action.