Let's imagine a land governed by direct democracy which has a river, and two communities on either side of the river. Because the communities trade with each other, a bridge over the river is proposed to link the two communities and increase trade. But who will pay for the bridge? Where will it be built? Will there be a toll to cross the bridge to pay for it? Will the ferries that crossed the river be compensated for the loss of income?

These are simple questions. If everyone was like-minded and had an equal share in the benefit of the bridge, then it should seem simple to build it.

In direct democracy, you'd expect people who would not directly benefit or who might need to pay a portion for the bridge to still vote for the bridge because they understand the benefit to the community as a whole.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't seem likely that people would vote if it wasn't in their interest. Especially when it's a monetary thing. There will be the anti-bridge people: the ferry operators, the nimby bridge naysayers, the locals worried it will blight their view who say the bridge ought not be built. The stonemakers, brick layers, business owners, and travelers want the bridge. A public campaign ensues. The bridge might not be built, and the communities do not grow and prosper. Everyone has forgotten why the bridge was proposed in the first place because the bridge has brought up other issues.

Politicians are the imperfect solution to this problem. A politician is supposed to have the interests of their constituency when they discuss the proposition, and compromise where their constituents cannot individually. They are supposed to see the bigger picture, and try to find the best solution for the location, funding, and compensation for affected people.

To your point of people being informed, people are (sort-of) informed today, certainly more than they were long ago. People are still not informed in the intricacies of lawmaking and how written rules will affect people. The cost of the whole population being informed also will detract from productivity.

Would you be willing, and would your employer be willing to commit a day a week to civic issues and informing yourself in order to vote effectively on issues that matter in your community.

I think technology can improve our government process; our representatives should do a better job communicating with their constituents on what they are doing, and importantly, get their input. This is a problem technology can solve.

On the other side, we the people, need to do a better job electing representatives. We need to elect reps that answer to us, not the highest bidder, and not to only a certain minority of the constituency. We need to hold our representatives accountable, and when they do not faithfully represent their constituents we need to collectively replace them with a new representative.

The bridge over a river is a contrived and simple problem; the reality of the problems that face politicians are typically more complex and the path forward is not at all obvious.

This is the problem if you try to enable direct-democracy without representatives. You burden the constituents with new responsibility and not everyone will accept it willingly or faithfully.

This doesn't touch the cybersecurity implications of voting on laws with technology.