I do understand his points. I did put a further in, but it takes them a long time to get round to approving posted comments. It might appear tomorrow.
One part of his piece that I did think was a good idea was this:
Anyway, i'd rather have a system that flips yours on its head, where popular impact is felt at the stage of policy formulation and debate, with the public acting like an expanded legislature. This creates a better politics because politicians have better, or at least more informed, policy options to choose from. And the public can't simply complain of having legislation thrust upon them from above, as fellow - arbitrarily chosen - citizens have had a role in formulating it. Such a system still manages to retain a clear line of command, where ultimate responsibility for decisions lies with (relatively) transparent, accessible and public individuals who are ultimately (and most importantly) accountable for their actions to the electorate.
Yes! A 'citizens jury' which can go through upcoming legislation and ask questions or suggest changes. Sounds fantastic. It's supposed to be how policy is formed in the Labour Party (policy forum meetings for members discuss various options and they get passed on and debated by delegates before being presented to Conference).