No, seriously, representative government is both the spirit and the implementation! Go read the treatises that underpin the design of the system. They had this

No, seriously, representative government is both the spirit and the implementation! Go read the treatises that underpin the design of the system. They had this debate and came down on the side of vesting all the power in representatives, rather than directly in the people. You seem to disagree with where they landed on this question. That's fine and great, you're entitled to your opinion and dissenting voices are important. But our system simply was not designed to place power directly in the hands of the masses, not even in spirit. Are we talking circles around each other? Are you talking about how you think it should work? I'm talking about how it was designed to work, which remains closer to how it does work in practice than what you are describing. And one of the reasons it was designed this way is right there in your comment: the government should not be unable to respond to new questions awaiting a vote on those questions by the electorate. The voters are instead expected to elect people they trust to act with good judgement when such new questions come up, and to boot out people whose judgement was shown to be unsound, the next time they have a chance. This is one of a number of reasons I prefer our system to the direct democracy you seem to be advocating.