Elected representatives are called as much because they represent something. But what? If representative democracy is different from direct democracy, then what is represented cannot be the same as a a direct record of the will of a group of people as manifested through a vote on a certain issue.
In fact elected representatives allow representation only of whole packages of beliefs, not single issues. The packages are voted for at special 'package' votes, which we call General elections. In this way voters are forced by the institutions of the state to accept some degree of tradeoff or difficult connection between different beliefs. The historical rationale for this is straightforward - if you did not insist on people voting for packages then different groups with passionate beliefs would vote for lots of self-interested but mutually conflicting policies. Sooner or later this would bring down the whole edifice of govenment in a screaming heap.
So we have representation to force packages and compromises on our greedy ways. But just because we need representation, does that mean we necessarily need representatives? Representatives do two things:
1) Ensure that the whole population gets a fair say.
2) Represent packages to vote for.
The first of these needs has in many cases been replaced by representative polling, with all their skews, weights, sample sizes and other trendy tools. And the second is already done more by parties than individuals.
None of this means that we should get rid of MPs. It just means that in the quest for innovation in representation we should start to ask what new combinations of tools, rules and technologies might be able to carry out the function of representation in a more demanding and consumerist era.