That is a good point...but who's to say that people can't debate and discuss things amongst themselves in a direct democracy? I think those a few of the points of contention that keep direct democracy from being as widespread as it could be. But when you think about it, when we vote for "experts" in a representative democracy, we're the ones deciding who qualifies as an expert and who doesn't--or for that matter, we're even deciding whether or not we even care about "expertise" in a particular subject. So if I had to choose personally, I'd go for cutting out the middle man and giving decisions directly to the citizens.
It's not the same. Have you ever gone to a tutorial in university where nobody in the class prepared for it? It's painful, really. Can we count on the average citizen to have a meaningful discussion about law, foreign policy, or the economy? Heck, can we count on the population to first come up with a budget and then vote on it?
You make that distinction between being an expert and deciding who qualifies an experts, and I think that's exactly the reason we have middlemen. Just because I can choose who I think has the most expertise as a doctor or a plumber or a home renovator doesn't make me an expert in any of those fields. I think that's even more reason to pick experts, which you characterize as the middleman.
Furthermore, in a representative democracy, our representatives' jobs is to debate and discuss. That's how it worked in Ancient Greece as well. I believe that, in order to make good decisions, you have to actually stake out some time and effort to formally discuss something. Given that we all have jobs and private lives, it's impossible for us to dedicate as much effort to public life as should be required of those people who end up making decisions for all of us. Whatever deliberation we do make as citizens will not have the same quality as those who spend their days deliberating, and deliberation - as we know in everyday life - is key to making good decisions.
Not caring about expertise is a recipe for disaster. I concede that there are decisions where expertise isn't as necessary. But the world we live in and the governance of that world is becoming more and more complex. Social, economic, health, trade, administrative, and foreign policy are all interconnected in ways that I, personally, feel is overwhelming for me to figure out without dedicated study. In this context, for the public to decide that they don't care about expertise would be the greatest irresponsibility. I would not want to live in a system where one feels that their ignorance is validated by the institution of democracy.
