"Why settle for 'watered-down' versions of democracy when we can have unfiltered, raw decision making power directly in the hands of the people?". You answered your own question. With direct democracy, society becomes governed by easily swayed and weak opinions. A key example of this lies from the very creation of democracy itself, before modern democracies switch to the form of representative democracy (a switch that occurred with reason, mind you). During the early periods of Democracy, a concept stemming from the Athens, a man named Socrates proved to be one of the most influential opposers of democracy, and believed that other than tyranny, it was the worst form of government. During his own trial, he was accused of "impiety and corrupting the youth", even though he was simply questioning the government and its ideas of rigid control and authority. Because the Athenian democracies did not like to be questioned or challenged with new ideas beyond what they believed was right, they wrongfully convicted Socrates to death, swayed by anger and annoyance to throw an innocent man into the realm of death. Why would modern societies, where anger and impulsivity thrive, be insusceptible to these errors? Do you not see how the very root of democracy is spoiled in swayable mood, while representative democracy would allow for steadfast and capable leaders to represent their people without creating extreme realities?

your entire rebuttal is structured around weak claims, trying to parry my arguments with baseless claims. How exactly does direct democracy "leverage technology to facilitate informed decision-making"? In fact, the very opposite is what is occurring. Modern day technology and social media has erupted into a field where people can make broad, unsupported, false, or hateful claims with repercussion. Such claims are the very essence of the Athenian democracy's downfalls, so how is it a "weak analogy"? In what world would angry mobs of people have the calm of mind to follow "deliberative processes"? Furthermore, you claim that modern leaders exploit power for personal gain and don't follow the publics opinions. But in a country where representative democracy is properly followed, the people and their representatives are the ones that choose their leaders, so it is usually in their hands for choosing a leader without a proper understanding. Furthermore, proper guidelines and more transparency should be achieved by those who actually represent the country, allowing for the people to elect the representatives that actually align with their views, rather than electing those who exploit power and create corruption.