My main difficulty with a direct democracy is that it's a _job_ to be properly informed about topics. How can every person be informed enough on every vote-able

My main difficulty with a direct democracy is that it's a _job_ to be properly informed about topics. How can every person be informed enough on every vote-able decision that might affect them, while also trying to work a normal job required to provide for their families to pay rent and live life? California propositions feel like something close to direct democracy, and as an example there was one about Kidney Dialysis Centers [0]. I'm not too affected by it, other than potential future worries, but I wasn't sure what the 'right' choice was after a few days of investigating. I know which way I _feel_ is the right choice, but the impacts are hard to judge, especially when there's campaign finance involved and there's obviously one side that has more monetary impact than the other. Should I have taken _no_ stance and not voted on that particular issue? Should I have spent time searching out and talking to people who are actually affected on both sides of the issue ? Overall, it feels reasonable to me to say 'I trust this person's general judgement and I'll delegate my vote on wider issues to them and as a society we can make it so that their job is to be properly informed* on the issues required'. Admittedly the same issues pop up in terms of monetary influence and proper representation being a tricky thing. I guess political science just seems like a difficult problem to solve, if there even is such a thing as a solution. [0] https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_23,_Dialysis_Clinic_Requirements_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_23,_Dialysis_...) *properly informed being admittedly an entirely subjective quality