I'm really appalled at the lack of insight of people here.
"...but people are too dumb" Wow, groups are dumb because of interactive peer pressure. A person can be very intelligent. It's that intelligence we have to tap and there are very easy ways to collect individual ideas and opinions without the interference of peer pressure.
"...but that's a democracy and that's two wolves winning" That's simply a non-related argument. What's being proposed is not the rule of democratic votes but the rule of law being voted on by democratic processes. The process of creating a law, statute or budget would remain unchanged except that it would be done BY a different representative of the people. ...namely, all the people themselves.
"...but it's a computer and we all know those can be manipulated"
"...but paper ballots can't be corrupted" Ok, these are simply idealistic comments. Our paper ballot system now gains us absolutely zero accountability of the process. Ballots are lost, disenfranchised, extras are added, entire precincts are forgotten about and we still have hanging chads that inject confusion into the tally. Compare this to VISA/MC where 'to the penny' accounting with less than .2% fraud occurring and you'll see that computers CAN be orders of magnitude more accurate. Also, a computer CAN VERY EASILY ascertain the true wishes of the people by methods like 'ranked' voting of multiple choices (which eliminates voting AGAINST the most evil), and qualified voting which informs the voter of related info while making the choice. It could also, AND WE HERE SHOULD ALL BE AWARE OF THIS ONE, ELIMINATE the multiple levels of candidates. By that I mean no primaries or party selections where our choices are limited by some elite group controlling the nominees. (Sound close to home???)
"...but what happens when we take away one branch of the government?" Again, this is not removing a branch, this is populating it with different people. The process not only remains in place but gains in diversity, experience, long-term memory, legitimacy, current-ness, balance, non-corruptability.
Given what we have now, where corruption is THE NAME OF THE GAME in every law, statute and budget, why would anyone not see the benefit of this? The only consideration in it is that the actual mechanism be transparent (i.e. open source in computer terms) and controlled by the very people it gathers its votes from.
In the area of "just think what it could be like"... consider the changes that would take place if every issue created an online, ongoing and unlimited debate, which then led to an open sourced bill, which then led to a legislative change and the entire process was in a constant state of audit by anyone who cares for Constitutional, merit based and 'will of the people' content.
Under such a system, does anyone here believe that the following practices would have survived very long?: Citizen's United; Posse Comatatus; Fractional Reserve Banking; employer-based insurance; GMOs; cancer cure bans; corporations' legal requirement to put shareholders' income first; two-tiered public stock offerings; domestic drones / military; police altering their motto from 'protect and serve'; unsubstantiated military pre-emptive strikes; Sandy Hook; birther/truther/waco/etc. investigations; and possibly the biggest - SCOTUS appointments.
This is how I would expect an open mind to react to such a proposal.