The problem with direct democracy is that it lacks the system of checks and balances that exist in a representative democracy. Fifty-two percent of the population can deprive the other forty-eight of their rights. And often the popular will is subject to undue influences from special interests. Most voters aren't exactly well-informed.
Funny, given that you've advocated restricting rights in the past so long as the majority supports such restrictions.
Anyway, increasing the legislature size is objectively a good thing so long as the system used is FPTP or some other constituency-based system. (Under a proportional system, a smaller legislature is probably ideal, although really only for reasons of controlling overhead costs.)
Why? Because it is far easier to remove a corrupt or incompetent or otherwise problematic legislator who has an electorate of 50,000 than one who has an electorate of 500,000. Campaigning becomes less costly--and thus less about who foots the bill for campaign work. Politicians who primarily cater to those footing the campaign bills will be able to overwhelm an underfunded good government campaigner in a large constituency. But, in a small constituency, high-cost advertising is less effective, and the keys to good government elections, like a strong door-knocking operation, become paramount.
Not that there won't still be corrupt/ineffective/incompetent politicians in office. Indeed, in total there will probably be more of such. But they will comprise a smaller percentage of the enlarged legislature.
