Do you really think it would be better if anyone could decide about anything, even without having proper knowledge of the issue ?
The idea of "representative" democracy (opposed to "direct") is that you elect someone more or less aligned to your ideas, which has the time and competence to make the best decisions. It's far from a perfect system, but let's not delude ourselves about the alternative.
In practice, every decision has its side effects, and law in most cases is the result of compromise.
I can't think of a worse system where your average Joe can vote about things like taxes, gun control, minimum wage, immigration, national security, not having the slightest idea of how his decisions will affect the whole picture.
And I hear your argument, it was my first reaction as well when the thought occurred.
However, while the "average Joe" may suck at understanding online privacy issues, he may be great at accounting/farming/teaching/what-have-you whereas you suck at that. The thing is, your average Joe is more likely to listen for advice than your congressman. And he's good at something else than congressing, something practical that gets voted upon.
It would need adjustments, it would require recluse intellectuals to care for and enlighten their neighbours, but it would give me hope in the system.
The idea of "representative" democracy (opposed to "direct") is that you elect someone more or less aligned to your ideas, which has the time and competence to make the best decisions. It's far from a perfect system, but let's not delude ourselves about the alternative.
In practice, every decision has its side effects, and law in most cases is the result of compromise.
I can't think of a worse system where your average Joe can vote about things like taxes, gun control, minimum wage, immigration, national security, not having the slightest idea of how his decisions will affect the whole picture.