That's a strawman.

In some of my other posts, I have written in favor of abolishing the office of the President and eliminating all monarchical and quasi-monarchical institution. My argument is about what level democracy ought to take place at: a majority of a thousand in one local area, that happens to be a minority of the total populace nationally, vs. the majority of the whole populace. Furthermore, I am not for or against democracy per se. I am for the maximization of liberty, and specifically liberty defined as non-domination in the civic republican sense (I am free to the extent that no other person has the capacity to arbitrarily intervene in my choices). Furthermore, there are different forms of democracy. No one just supports democracy in general, because that's nonsense. My argument cannot justify a totalitarian State. The only thing that it justifies is not putting the cart before the horse! And I'm looking specifically at the American system, btw. More direct democracy and more decentralization would be despotic in the context of the United States today. In the town where I currently live, the majority of the population is racist and homophobic. And, most towns in America are the same way. The majority of Americans are not, but the majority of the small towns are. I'm arguing for the majority to overrule a backwards minority. In terms of territory, the bigot minority has more control. They own more land and are spread out more. In terms of actually headcount, they are not in the majority, but decentralization would allow this minority to impose their backwards despotic politics on the majority of the nation. Given the current American situation, centralized democracy is actually more democratic in the context of the whole. Localization of politics would mean the return of Jim Crow, racist laws, and banning of homosexuality. In this town, my spouse is a racial minority, one which the majority of the populace would oppress if given the opportunity. Currently, centralized democracy does not allow local populations to pass such oppressive laws.

Rural population as a marginalized group is an invalid argument, in my opinion. They are part of the majority, in terms of race, class, and everything else. They are a minority only in terms of their extremist and fascist political views, which stem from lousy education in rural areas coupled with lack of exposure to "the other." You said "Just replace rural population in your post by any marginalised group and read it again." Okay, let's do that. We'll replace it with the most vocal and powerful marginalized group in the United States right now, "white supremacists." I'm not pitting one group against another; they are already against each other. It is a fact that the greatest indicator of political view in America is where you live, whether in an urban or a rural environment: if you are in a rural environment, your views are generally more likely to be authoritarian.

What you argue would follow from my position is precisely what follows, not from by view but, from the alternative. We currently have a dictatorial leader with totalitarian leanings, moving more and more towards fascism, because the institution of the electoral college allowed the rural minority to override the popular vote and thereby impose their fascist leader on the urban majority. Here I'm arguing for more democracy, not less. I'm arguing that the same thing that happened in the Presidential election would replicate itself locally throughout America if we were to switch to decentralized direct democracy today.

With representative vs. direct democracy, the majority of the populace is under wage-slavery, working 40+ hours a week, then working on finances, shopping for groceries, dealing with personal matters, etc. in their "spare time." The wealthy are the only ones with the free time to actually participate in politics if we transition to direct democracy, which means that direct democracy will intensify plutocracy (rule of the wealthy). With representative democracy, the poor and middle class—the working class, which is the majority—simply has to find time to vote for representatives a few times a year, which it's easier to find time for than it is to attend directly democratic meetings on a regular basis. By switching to direct democracy, without freeing people from wage-slavery, you simply increase the control of an already powerful minority, thereby making the system less democratic. Direct democracy is only more democratic when the people are free to participate and have the time and ability to become informed and make informed decisions.