Could it be argued that an understanding of how x works is irrelevant, only the outcome matters, in that individuals who don't understand the workings of x are still able to tell if the outcome is positive or negative for them, and vote on that.
Not in this case. The full outcome of the Brexit vote will not become clear for another ten years, probably. Both sides have tried to win over voters by scheming with "irrefutable facts" that clearly showed the other side's facts were wrong.
Not only that - ten years from now people will probably assign positive and negative effects of Brexit to other, more recent causes. The idea of people voting based on the perceived outcome for themselves is limited by their memory / attention span. A lot of important decisions, like those related to infrastructure, have immediate costs but bring benefits only years later.
If you are interested in reading the whole article, please be my guest, but if you'd like to jump to the payload, use your browser search for "sortition".
(Though I can't help but point out the article undercuts its own premise accidentally. The EU, to the extent that it is even a democracy, is certainly subject to the exact same flaws described in the first half of the article! Therefore, logically, the decision to leave an organization where democracy is failing must not be so bad, even if it was made by a process that was itself democratically flawed. This does not "destroy the argument", in the parlance of the day, but it weakens this particular vote being used as the hook for the article. A vote on any other topic would arguably work better.)