I agree to some extent that the situation of a representative government vs the individual is not totally coercive.,as many people have given an ill-informed consent to this state of affairs. But there is a power i mbalance on many levels. One is the monopoly on violence that the state holds. Another problem is that the government,or politicians in general,are not held to their promises,so they can promise what they want,and political memory is very short.
If politicians were bound by their word to represent voters,or a group of voters,it would make much more sense.
Most people believe that parlamentarism is not a very good system.
The problem is that they believe that no other system is possible. This is false.
Here is one tip for a solution,by the great Murray Bookchin:

Libertarian municipalism
Starting in the 1970s, Bookchin argued that the arena for libertarian social change should be the municipal level. In a 2001 interview he summarized his views this way: "The overriding problem is to change the structure of society so that people gain power. The best arena to do that is the municipality—the city, town, and village—where we have an opportunity to create a face-to-face democracy."[27] In 1980 Bookchin used the term "libertarian municipalism", to describe a system in which libertarian institutions of directly democratic assemblies would oppose and replace the state with a confederation of free municipalities.[28] Libertarian municipalism intends to create a situation in which the two powers—the municipal confederations and the nation-state—cannot coexist.[27] Its supporters—Communalists—believe it to be the means to achieve a rational society, and its structure becomes the organization of society.