I still don't read it that way, or at least I think there's more to it. What he's expressing is a structural property ("logical consequence") of representative

I still don't read it that way, or at least I think there's more to it. What he's expressing is a structural property ("logical consequence") of representative authority, applied to information, much like it is applied to power in democracy. The point is that there's always a limit to informed consent, and that technocracy/"government of experts" is more or less an inevitable property of ("true") democracy itself rather than a choice. That consent can only ever be misinformed is the point or at least the argument debated here.