Well said Unknown_K. Anarchy seems to be the only real solution where people could do what they want without being affected more by others oppinions than they want to themselves.
But if you take financial politics at least they could lay out different suggestions and people could vote on the one they'd think was best. They do that internally when discussing finances anyway. When the internet have become rolled out enough to say most everyone would be able to do so they could start votes over the net making it faster and easier to have a democracy where people would get to have say in more than just a decision between people.
Last election race here in Denmark has 2 front figures battling most of the time. Their politics on the different debatable items were almost similar. They both had (according to them) a good plan on how to finance the stuff they were talking about but none would actually go into depth on it, or actually answer on it. Thus the guy who said "no more raised taxes" won. People then realized just how much would need to be cut down and at least last week kindergarden workers were on strike because of cutbacks even though one reason for the cutbacks there would be that there would be fewer kids needing a kindergarden.