There are varieties of representation, with various political philosophies. Even the so-called "democracies," may turn in, as quite uncompatible varieties:
Among these, only affirmaze, for a fair-representation, avoids the temptation to lump-people-together. A mediator may work, though, with the favor of fully-free people (e.g: for a road, or water-resource), rather than assume/presume a "public-wish."
For most cases, a first-person, may find several fine options to pick from, and find no need to lump-together with other people. R-world is there. It is most probably, at least as fine as a vote, which would pick a single path, to "meet all needs, at once."
Therefore, a first is rarely plural. A need to lump-people-together-and-vote, is rare.
e.g: Even for a shared regional/national resource, if it was owned already for a long-term, (inherited from the past-generation, to pass it to the future generation), then it should rarely, if ever, raise an issue to vote.
e.g: War-or-peace ought to follow a need, upon urgency. Therefore, the armaze-people, must weigh the case, whether to wage a war. i.e: A total-war may gather people together, but it is not a matter of "popular politics." It is for a right-thing-to-do.
To assume/presume an "extra legitimacy" such as the "public-wish" or "national-sovereignty," so often, can get to be a tyranny-of-majority. And it is almost always a neglect of the opinions of most people, at least, in issues where only a single team may win, among the alternatives. To lump-together, brings the problems which existed in 2002. To Vote, in an Ex-state. The abuses may inspire an armageddon-vision, too.