There's a concept I haven't heard since some political science classes. It might be more minor but dear god was there a lot of boring writing about it.
Political philosophers since Aristotle have been arguing against direct democracy. Aristotle was specifically concerned about regular people who didn't have the time or skills to be able to govern, making it rule by a bunch of people who weren't good at ruling and didn't have time or ability to get good at it.
That was a huge oversimplification, but if you're interested in why direct democracies don't work, Aristotle formed the basis for a lot of arguments in the Politics.
There is an interesting idea that I think would be terribly hard to implement and not realistic called "open source governance": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_governance . I think expanded policy writing access would be cool but it opens up a huge can of unsolvable worms with voting & policy review, as well as just too much access
I agree with Tom's point on rule for the party nowadays, but DD isn't the way to go (that'd create tyranny of the uninformed, or more likely, tyranny of the media opinions even more than today). I think changing SMSP to ensure a bunch of small, competing parties would be the way to go, so each segment has a small, changing amount of representation that all has to work together to make a majority is better, but its much more unstable than our current governmental system, be that as it may.