I was responding to what you said, but we digressed. Please let me start again. You say that meetings are a key element of democracy.
I think this is just incidentally true. To me, democracy is defined by citizens having certain roles and responsibilities. In all but the tiniest countries, these must be delegated which means the relationships between voters and delegates are vital. Relationships are maintained through communication. The quality of a relationship is almost entirely determined by the qualities of the communication. Deeds matter more than words, but most timely knowledge of deeds comes through words.
In most countries, especially the U.S., this communication is poor, leading to most or all of the problems in U.S. politics. The blog on the website I pointed you to: http://bit.ly/peoplecount-guide , proposes a way to remedy these problems by providing an efficient and effective political communication system.
Meetings are a very natural way for humans to communicate. With many people around, we feel the event is important and when a crowd feels emotion together, whether it be gravitas, inspiration, urgency or anger, we feel that “we” are in sync and being understood. Of course if our emotions differ from those of the crowd, our disaffection is magnified.
What meetings do you feel to be a key element of democracy- meetings between a politician and constituents, meetings between legislators, other meetings? What are these meetings supposed to accomplish? Toward what end do you want to improve them: make them more satisfying, more effective or efficient at accomplishing their goal, less expensive to attend?