Your organization's position on republican vs. democratic governmental forms startled me.  But then, I  considered the source of the opinion expressed.  Slavery would still be an institution in this country had not those that "thought they knew best" abolished it. (Of course, the Democratic Party was supportive of slavery; after all, the majority in the southern states were fond of the practice).  No doubt, US "dough boys" would not have entered, and ended, W.W.I, had popular opinion been part of the equation (Kaiser rolls on every dinner table!).  Some questions could be raised over US troops, or even the material support of Allies, in Europe during W.W.II, had polls directed our actions in place of actual leadership  (though no big fan of many FDR policies, I could not accuse him of "blowing with the wind" during those times).
 
The list goes on... suffrage for blacks shortly after the Civil War, desegregation in schools,  abortion rights, aiding foreign nations (and both major US political parties have aided other countries.... both good and bad) How many of these actions would have taken place, or will continue to take place, if our nation operated as a true democracy?   The case of foreign aid is particularly intriguing, as no matter how supportive an argument can be made for any particular nation, the odds of a clear cut majority of all Americans supporting any single nation are seriously in doubt.  Yet, we are, for better or worse, the leader of the free world in most matters, and the IMF depends on our leadership (and money) to sustain balances in the world economy.  To what level would the pure democratic vote of the citizenry fund the IMF?  How about Zero?
 
I also disagree with the premise that minority interests are not accounted for within a republic.  If a simple majority via purely democratic voting by all individual citizens could determine legislation, minorities would inherently have even less input into decision making.... no matter the merits of their causes, they would still be in the minority.  Yet, under a republican format, by ultimately limiting the number of people in the law-making position ( a House limited by state population, a Senate limited to 100 members, and a single President), a small handful of individuals can promote a given minority interest position to much greater effect, and with much greater results, than could be achieved via a true democratic national vote, where a minority interest could easily be trampled by majority.  In addition, states of lower populations would be forgotten groups as they, themselves, became minorities.  Why would the nation at large care about a road to a North Dakota power plant to serve that state's population?  Answer: They wouldn't.  In a pure democracy, give and take is not necessary and smaller states would have federal funds taken from them in much greater proportion to what they would get back.  In fact, in pure democracy, Federal Funds would no doubt be returned to areas in proportion to who paid them in the first place - not necessarily to who may actually need them.
 
Lastly, your idea that people are now so well informed and educated, that the elected leadership is no longer needed is quite laughable.  While I would agree that people who have read your treatise on the website are probably somewhat educated (they can surf the web... while not rocket-science, an accomplishment of some note) and perhaps informed (anyone checking out political websites must have a prior interest in government); you are talking about a general populace that recent polls have suggested have trouble naming the three branches of government and actually believe that the Bill of Rights include a mythical "Right to Privacy" (if one commits assault, robbery, or some other crime in the privacy of one's home, is it still a crime? It is... so much for the "right to privacy").  I fear that giving the power of legislation to all, via pure democracy, would not lead to the rather naive Utopian state that you seem to think would result, but to a horror of mob rule mentality that would crush minority interests, probably seize property rights as we know them (if the majority wants what others have, what stops them from taking it?), and our country would devolve into  a high school debating society run amuck (Free Beer for All...lets vote on it!  Yeah!!).  I also see an ever more activist judiciary develop (to temper or, more likely, overrule the mob) which would vest more power into an even less democratic governmental body than a republican (note the small "r") legislature.
 
I do not know how serious the author of your essay was when preparing this document.  Nor do I know if it is representative of your national party beliefs.  If it was published to stimulate debate, it has served its purpose... at least from my point of view.  If it was published as a manifesto, its downright scary.
 
An Alternative for your Consideration: I believe that our current system, while far from perfect, has served this country quite well for the past two centuries, and that it will continue to do so.  However, I do think that term limitations would be a much better method of returning control of this, our Republic, back to the citizenry.  Throughout history, many elected individuals have served well for long periods on both sides of the aisle.  However,  I believe that in most cases, a certain  distancing from reality sets into elected officials over the course of one Senate term or two House terms.  They lose their direction, or get too caught up in the politics of compromise to the extent that leadership falls prey to too much caution.  Also, an unfortunate consequence of the current system is that long term politicos keep getting re-elected more out of name recognition, than out of any particular stances or merit.  Perhaps this kind of "tweaking" to the system would result in better representation of all, without the degenerative effects of pure democracy as you have proposed.