1. Voter privacy is a meaningless protection that is meant to prevent any transparency. Without fully public votes that can be independently confirmed and counted by anybody, there is no reason whatsoever to believe the system operates at face value. It is designed specifically to eschew transparency and verification. The fact that we aren’t really concerned with damaging innocent people’s reputations can be seen all throughout our culture, but no more obvious than letting papers print the names and photos of people who have been charged but not convicted of crimes.
2. Even if it was working at face value, representational democracy is meaningless. Representatives often vote against the interest of their constituents, and even against the will of their supporters. They are notorious for not not even making themselves familiar with most of what they sign off on, merely going along with party positions, or voting in the interest of lobbyists and other corporate sponsors. In fact, it is not even possible for them to represent the varied interests of their many constituents, even if they tried. And if they were doing the best they could, a person’s individual vote, not some statistical aggregate, should decide the policies we must live and abide by.
3. Even if there were a transparent, direct democracy, what gives the many the right to force the few? Laws and dictates that are made must be enforced, and the only way to enforce them is the threat of consequences, which will eventually result in death of you continue to disobey or avoid lesser consequences. Why should the democratic might of the many, enforced by organized aggression, be allowed to oppress those in the minority? (see: The War on Drugs, which had majority support for decades, while destroying millions of lives)
However, if large nation state governments were to no longer exist, and communities based on voluntary association were allowed to self-organize around similar interests, direct democracy could work. Never perfectly, but well enough that disputes could more easily be resolved. It is always easier to accomplish a semblance of order on smaller scales than larger ones. So how do we determine the optimum community size? I have no precise answer for that. I have ideas, but like anything else, solutions are generally more forthcoming when more people put their heads behind how to make something work, rather than just discarding anything that differs from what they are used to.
I can also see other areas of concern. There is no perfect human society. However what we do know is that the excess of centralized nation states, and the power they bestow upon a small ruling elite, have been endlessly destructive to humanity and the environment. The fact that no alternatives are perfect has no bearing on the fact that the status quo is the worst possible scenario, and getting worse all the time.
Answer: Centralized nation states and institutionalized patriarchal hierarchies.