Trying to re-read my first argument and decode it, I think what I was saying was that no matter the attempts to separate human union, the people will never stop trying to unify.

Your concern, is as mine. No person is on a different level of ethics and morals than anyone else. Noone is entitled to say what is right or what is wrong to you or to anyone else.
Look at all writings of fiction, the only 'acceptable loss' is the self. If that is not the case, then the love of the self is greater than the love for others.

Yes, rather than having every person voting on every subject ever, it would be executed in a similar manner to say, Steemit. Just as you would subscribe to a topic or a writer, you could subscribe to a specific branch of governing or issue, maybe subscribe to your favorite person who engages in the system completely.
How would marketing, advertising and such play a role in this system? People, and I include myself, are easily influenced by commercials and popular opinion. Will this affect people's judgements?
On one hand, popular opinion will always serve to bring important votes to the media. On the other hand, it allows for the same corruption of words we receive from current politicians.
Thirdly, is centralized coverage on 'the news' a legitimate practice under such a system?

I'm glad you also find this system plausible and worth looking into further. Your way of proposing small groups of co-opting to an interest is a great way to quietly slip away from the grasps of plutocracy.

In regards to the question proposed whether any one percent of the populus has the right to coerce the other into something they do not agree with I think it would make sense to ask the question why this situation would arise at all.
If there ever was a vote which put two groups of people opposed to each other I would like to believe negotiation trumps flat out declination of an agreement.