Less Democratic = Stronger Democracy:?

I found The Good Citizen to very intriguing. Schudson makes some interesting claims that contradict many commonly held beliefs. For example, he argues that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were not as democratic and amazing as people make them out to be, and modern day politics should not be modeled after them. The most interesting idea presented in the reading was that in the early 1900's, progressives accepted the idea that "more democracy meant less democracy, so less democracy was necessary to gain more" (page 172).

At first, for obvious reasons, the statement confused me. I had to re-read it several times. However, after thinking about it, I realized that since the early 1900's, this progressive idea has shaped the way we think about politics even today. Less is more. The idea originated with changing of the "long ballot" to the "short ballot". Instead of lengthy debates, we have become plagued by the "shrinking sound bite", where citizens are exposed less and less to the actual ideas and statements made by politicians. But the question still remains, is this necessarily a bad thing? As Schudson points out, Lincoln's speech in the Lincoln-Douglas debates was very lengthy, but not many important quotes stood out. However, In his three minute Gettysburg addressed, he delivered "the greatest American Speech of all time".

I understand the criticisms of the "shrinking sound bite", however, in world where the internet is used to get information instantaneously and microwaves are used daily, can we really expect citizens to take the time to delve deep into political issues? And would this really make for a better democracy? Or is the providing of less information (which is "less democratic") actually creating a stronger democracy? After all, the more you know, the harder it is to make a decision, and the greater the possibility of choosing not to vote.