I've been thinking quite a bit about forms of government lately. The current 'hot' debate in political theory asks how to reconcile people's increased expectation that elected officials actions reflect majority viewpoints with the founder's fear of a direct democracy where decisions were made without the 'filter' of deliberation. In other words-- Gallup and his progeny (and referenda, etc.) have bridged the gap between the people and policymaking.
The problem raised by critics of the purer form of majoritarianism this move represents, is that the people are either (1) not engaged so only zealots on either side's views are heard; (2) too uniformed to make good choices; or (3) too 'disenfranchised' to participate by a society in which all people are not equal.
I've been struggling with this quite a bit. I agree with each of the above arguments some of the time. Yet, the real question is whether, if you could fix all the above problems, direct democracy is the correct choice or if representation has other benefits. The problem is that these begin to sound like 'benevolent king' arguments-- better to be ruled by a king that makes decisions that benefit the people, than ruled by the peasants or the commoners. In Lord of the Rings, the Age of Man is inaugurated when the King is crowned. In the Roman Senate, the Senators rebelled when commoners were invited to join their ranks.
Representative democracy did not exist until the American experiment. Direct rule by the vote of the people was never considered a good idea. The benevolent noblese, or king, or elite was the best civil society had to offer prior to the Founding Fathers attempt to merge the will of the people with the filter of deliberation. Just because technology can take us to a pure will of the people model, does that make it 'progress'? Can you argue no without being elitist?