Jesus no. Even full time politicians don't have the time to read all the bills they vote on. You really don't want to reduce complex legislation to single sentence statements that casuals can vote on in between checking their Facebook feeds. See Brexit for an example how that would turn out.

Imagine the vast quantities of money that would be spent on advertising, on both sides of every single bill.

In the UK many "full time politicians" have 2 or 3 other jobs (that would be full-time for other people). Things like working on the board of large companies, being a columnist.

I guess if you're being told by lobbyists what to vote you don't need to take time ...

You don't need to read the bills, you just need somebody to check if there are any mines in them. You can find some who share your political views.

You could call those people your "representatives" and even defer your vote to them!

I don't want to defer my votes to them, I want to be able to, at all times, change my decision.

Have you seen California's ballot (they have a lot of referendums)? It's like half an inch thick. Almost no one has time for direct democracy, and even if you do have time to go through the ballot carefully, you're still underinformed on basically all the issues unless you spend days researching. And this is for relatively wealthy, educated people -- imagine all the (majority of) Americans making < $50k a year, many with multiple jobs, many with children or elderly relatives, many with health issues, having to stay informed on the finer points of ethanol refining or what have you. Direct democracy is a super bad idea.

The so-called fluid democracy. I very like the idea, as it sounds ideal on first glance - especially that with the Internet, we can actually implement direct voting on small issues without too much hassle. But I expect there are some holes in this idea; is there a list of main issues someone could reproduce here or link to?