Here's a concrete example you can mull over.
A certain very stupid politician called a referendum that served as a lightning rod for the seething discontent that seemed set to erupt and express itself in support for a nativist, racist political party obsessed with poorly thought out ideas about sovereignty, and that was fueled by generalised resentment on the part of the unemployed and unemployable (and funded by a multi millionaire, oddly enough).
The referendum asked a simple question, with one of the two possible answers potentially involving very complex negotiations in the aftermath of the vote. The negotiations would be about the terms of extrication from political, legal and financial links with a bloc of other countries, that had developed for over forty years. To many of the voters, this bloc had come to represent all that was unsatisfactory about life in this particular post-industrial, post-imperial, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society. Their misapprehension was encouraged by unscrupulous political parties for decades (and boy did that come back to bite them in the bum, but heyho)...
Thanks to the fact that the terms of the referendum were too simple and thus completely open ended, everyone who voted to leave the bloc could reasonably believe that their own individual hopes for the outcome might be fulfilled afterwards - some hoped for an end to immigration from other parts of the bloc; some hoped for continued favourable trade deals with members of the bloc; some hoped for renewed autonomy in economic decision making, in legal matters, in foreign affairs; some wanted a return to life as it had been fifty years before the vote, with only English spoken on the streets and in shops and schools. Some just flipped a coin.
The result came in - the majority wanted to leave.
So here's the question:
To what extent are all those voters, all with their favourite pet ideas about what Britain should become in the aftermath of the referendum - how Britain's relationship with the EU should look, how many (if any) immigrants should be allowed to remain in Britain, or enter Britain from now on, and whatever other wishes they may have - be allowed to express these ideas, to press their MP to carry out their ideas?
What form of expression can their articulation of their hopes and dreams take? Can the individuals all join together and form a crowd that won't leave the streets until the government agrees to expel all the people they don't like the look of or the sound of? They are exercising their right to protest, so why not do it en masse until they get what they want? What if different groups want the MPs to pay attention to different policies that they felt were promised to them by the Leave campaign? Can they just shout at each other until the loudest policy emerges and the MPs can take it from there?
Or should the hordes all eliminate the middle man entirely and descend on Brussels and sing football chants and throw plastic restaurant chairs about until they all get exactly the details they each want from 'the EU'?
Put simply, how are you going to make sure your MP represents you and only you, given that your neighbour may have voted Leave with a completely different set of assumptions as to what that meant. How loud and persistent do you think you have the right to be so that your MP does your bidding?
Do you see what Churchill was hinting at here when he paraphrased Burke - 'the dictation of a brutal mob and wicked sect'?
Do you understand the limits of your MP's responsibility to listen to you personally and thus the fatuousness (and actually the danger) inherent in your insistence that your ability to physically approach your representative is a key element of what you call democracy?