I have always been in favour of people voting on individual issues rather than for representational democracy. We have the technology; that is if we can get citizens to keep up with passphrases and singing keys. There is lies the problem. That old Winston Churchill quote about people will be dissuaded from democracy by a six minute conversation with the average voter.
But if you start creating basic logic tests for voters, you get into Jim Crow era.
Democracy is a broken system. To every person who says, "It's worked great for n years," you need to take a step back, look objectively at the West and realize the US and UK overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran, twice, to maintain oil reserve. The US is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in South America and heads of state that are elected on the premise of returning wealth to their nations often die in airplane crashes.
Giving ever individual the power to vote on ever issue would distribute that injustice on a wider population. People are very easily persuaded by advertisements. Elected officials often come into power because they can afford their campaigns. In the most progressive election systems like in Australia (order of preference; no first past the post; mandatory voting -- it is literally impossible to throw your vote away unless you go in and put an X on your ballot) they still elect idiotic parties like that one that put Tony Abbot in power.
It would probably be easier to industry to persuade the general population than just a few congressmen, and non-profits don't have the energy to take that on every day. ...you know .. now that I think about it. Maybe that system wouldn't be worse at all. In reality, it would be no better or worse than the situation is currently. It's mostly because your vote doesn't really matter. If you think it does, remember that from the early 1980s until 2012, there was always a Bush or Clinton within 5 people in the line of succession for the presidency. In America, we elect kings and queens.