The difference between direct democracy and representative democracy is that in direct democracy THE POPULATION DECIDES.

Instead of electing some shithead to be would-be dictator of the nation, the state, county, municipality, region, province, whatever, the people get DIRECT and ABSOLUTE oversight and accountability on the part of the elected "officials" which then are ACTUAL PUBLIC SERVANTS instead of being masters of the populace.

Say 70% of the population of [whatever size territory you might consider, let's say national] the country want something. They get together write it up, and FORCE THE GOVERNMENT to have the population vote on the proposal. Let's say a law is thoroughly unpopular: same thing, the citizens can REVOKE THE LAW.

Say a politician isn't doing a decent enough job: citizens propose a vote to kick him out. If enough citizens get behind the idea of having a vote (they could be for ousting the politician or against it, doesn't matter) then there is a vote.

IN ALL CASES it is the population who decides. Tired of wars? Revoke them. Tired of the surveillance state? CANCEL IT.

You can't do any of that in a so-called "representative" "democracy" because the asshole in chief can say "for national security reasons, I decide and fuck you very much, you can't even know what I base my decision on."

Short answer: no need to redraw borders, the existing ones work well enough.