Hey @christinekent I like the way you think! I was in a similar position a few weeks ago and now am trying to help explain how Issue Based Direct Democracy works through the wiki (I'll edit this latter to add a link) and answering questions here. So I'll try a quick summary.
When we think of direct democracy we think of every person having a single vote on every piece of legislation, this is great and thanks to modern technology it is entirely possible. Unfortunately due to our busy lives, it is difficult to keep up to date and be adequately informed on every piece of legislation, also some legislation doesn't concern many people.
The next step is liquid democracy, where an individual can delegate their vote to someone they feel they trust to vote for them (note this is similar to our current system), so an individual can delegate to different people for different issues, so I could delegate my "environment" votes to Max and my "media" votes to Tom. Furthermore, if there is a breach of trust, say Tom votes yes for an oppressive piece of legislation when he had convinced me that he stood for a free press, I can reassign my future votes to someone who hasn't breached my trust, or vote on my own. So ultimately I have more control over how my vote is used, whilst not having to be entirely consumed by the political goings on in our society. Of course at anytime I can be as engaged as I wish and vote how I choose.
However, a problem still exists, what about issues which are of consequence to only a few members of society. Let's say there is some legislation regulating competitive drone races over the nulabour. I have very little to do with this issue and I'm largely indifferent to its outcome. However, for a small group this issue is of great importance. Should I actually have a say? Or should I let the people whom this decision will impact make said decision? This is where IBDD comes in. So everything about the delegates still applies, however any votes which are "apathetic" can be turned over to a pool of votes which then can be traded based on scarcity and demand. So the drone racers can exchange their "tokens" for available votes.
Tokens are issued yearly and you gain them when you pass your vote into the freely available vote pool. This creates a market, subject to market forces, if a particular vote is more contentious, there will be less freely available votes, and more demand for them, so gaining votes on these issues will require more tokens than on an uncontested issue. This means that when society is in agreement or apathetic to an issue, the stakeholders should have relatively free passage of their legislation. Whereas if the population is divided on an issue it will be much more costly to pass.
Tokens can be held indefinitely, however this means they lose value over time, so holding them for a long time to try to gain more influence doesn't really work out. Also, if an issue is highly contested more people will be voting directly, so regardless of how much you have saved there is a limit to the extra influence you can earn.
So the benefit to IBDD is that it allows for easier passage of legislation that is less contentious. This has a positive impact on voting minorities concerned with very specific issues. Where as significant issues will be passed by a genuine majority, not a hyper-partisan dogmatic group of representatives that don't proportionately represent the population in any way