We need to first of all get 90% agreement on some basic things, before a "51% wins" system regarding more localized, nitty gritty problems, can have a morally acceptable basis. The 90% agreement level is the "Social Contract" or "General Will" level. What was tacit must be brought to conscious attention and consciously agreed-upon en masse. What can be agreed-upon in this way is going to be extremely basic stuff (and in all likelihood pretty libertarian). But all lawmaking thenceforth must take account of it, condensed as a set of guiding principles.
This level is where equality and a kind of veil of ignorance reigns. Each decides the kind of society they want, in the broadest terms, and whatever principles are most held in common, most strongly, ought to form the guiding principles of the state. The point of this is that the state then has legitimacy: one can be reasonably confident that, so long as the state behaves procedurally in a way that obeys those principles, then it will get no argument from the populace.
Also, children do not automatically inherit their parents' views, so the question is re-judged and retested, with each new adult introduced into the system.
It must be made clear to the people that TANSTAAFL. All of that kind of political demagoguery has to be made impossible from the outset, because people will be as wary of it as they would be of a Ponzi Scheme.
Thereafter, politics is indeed the art of compromise. Here are a bunch of social, political and economic problems. There will be various, and variously principled ways, of going about solving them. Have at it! But always within the guiding principles laid out by the First Referendum.