I agree with most of your overall analyse but I have doubts about your proposed solution.
Many issues require in depth studies, analysis, and extended debate - something you can't expect everyone to invest into on all matters.
The complex nuances will make the vast majority of voters susceptible to "easy solutions", populism, appealing rhetorics and slogans.
Strategies involving multiple steps will be launched simultaneously just to be down voted by supporters of another strategy, leaving behind half-attempts. Each step would have to be championed even though people agreed on the overall strategy.
We would have constant fundraising and lobbyism leading to democracy-fatigue.
Smaller/frequent elections would mean less turnout which would make each vote more susceptible to both legal lobbyism and corruption.
Let's use foreign policy on the Middle East as an example. How many people do you know, have the actual knowledge about history, politics, anthropology, war, finance, strategy, relations among the countries, groups, etc., etc. in that region to have a qualified opinion? I certainly don't. Would you feel comfortable about answering a question such as: "Should we impose a sanction on X" followed by pages specifying exactly what, who, when in details only 0,01% of the population have ever heard about?
Would you want to spend weeks studying this in detail to vote qualified?
Anyone saying "X caused war, Y will fix it" does not have a clue.
I don't believe in direct democracy. Quite the opposite. I think we might need more layers - some that are closer and thus easier to hold accountable and debate with.
The first layer should be so close that you can pick someone you trust by their values to represent you, someone close enough that you can talk to them. Their votes should be transparent, and when you don't understand or is worried, you can debate with them and either be settled or move your vote.