An issue is confusing suffrage and democracy. If the right to vote does not lead to the "rule of the people", then universal suffrage can persist, even by an absence of democracy. This is also part of Marx's naivety (1852):
<The carrying of Universal Suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honored with that name on the Continent. Its inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/08/25.htmAround a century of universal suffrage in the UK has not brought any supremacy of the working class, and so the capacity of voting is not a measure of either "freedom" or "democracy", and in fact, the opposite has occured. The political cartel of "representatives" has expanded to over 21,000 members in the UK, who are incompetent or malicious in their task of improving the lives of others. This has a simple explanation however, that the demand for politicians raises supply, and this is best achieved by the failure to complete tasks, like how our construction workers are incredibly ineffecient since it extends their salaries. We see a similar crisis of overemployment in such services as the Police Force, which has been duely commented on since at least 1994 (e.g. Francis), in how "anarcho-tyranny" is a perpetuation crime as a means to increase the police sector. The "War on Drugs" is a good example, while in the UK, there is a war against words. The manufacture of problems in order to sell solutions is then a large industry, and this infects all politicians.
The confusion of present systems of government are shown. In France, Germany, the UK and US, you have bicameral legislatures, which have majority/minority parties, as well as general representatives for the lower and upper houses of parliament, such as Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Speakers, and so on. This is in tandem with Executiveship, which in both France and the US, are given by general elections, apart from local elections. It is almost purposefully convoluted and wasteful, and the movement toward unicameral governments should be embraced. In the US, calls to abolish the Senate, and in the UK, calls to abolish the House of Lords, have popular demand from people. The "separation of powers" does not seem to preserve virtue. In the UK, abolishing the House of Lords, Supreme Court and Monarchy would be beneficial, and so only the lower house would persist.
We at least agree that "representation" is not actually "representative", but what is improved in the system of random sortition? The purpose of a direct democracy (afaik) is to simply vote on policies, not politicians, and so "better" representatives are irrelevant to the ends of popular government, which is also evidently a one-party state. Accountability must exist, but being "voted out" is a lenient way of describing treason. I think that any and all political corruption must be met by execution for the sake of such transgression against the general Will. The grounds of all revolution is the real crime of treason, for when the state is in contradiction with the national body, this is class warfare, and the pretext to overthrow it. I think the transition from a parliamentary model toward the "administration of things" is useful, and the idea of direct democracy relates to this, but I don't think "better" representatives are needed, but only the right to revolt, since if the purpose of a statesman hereafter becomes the person who simply completes tasks, rather than as a voice which excuses itself from tasks, we can move on.