It's sort of a different thought pattern than most of us are used to using. Imagine the anarchists vote: 49 for logging, 51 against. The question is then whether 51 anarchists foresters will mobilize to stop 49 anarchist deforesters. Will there be a civil war? Will the 49 weigh the benefits of whole community over wood and yield? Will someone burn the chainsaws in the night? It's less about whether we vote directly or through an intermediary, and more about how we hold the community together (or don't) through tough decisions.

It's not just that representatives in a typical representative democracy wield disproportionate amounts of power, it's also that the people who are able to become popular enough to get a significant share of votes are people who have time and resources and connections for campaigning, PR, and so on. This is a very specific stratum of the population. It's an elective kind of aristocracy, basically.

> should it be preserved for nature, or cut down for timber and farmland?

Perhaps the main question would be what happens when people disagree with the decision, regardless of how it was taken. Many Anarchists would be concerned more with that than with the question of how such a decision is taken.