Is it normal that i prefer direct-democracy to representative democracy?

Nope.

Why?

Farmers make your food and those sparsely populated farmers need just as much representation as the cities when it comes to legislation.

Representative democracy is to prevent mob mentality through direct democracy. To prevent 51% of the population from discriminating against the 49%. Especially when that 49% makes the food or manufactures stuff. What cities do are the white collared jobs, while important to a functioning society I'm not going to give them 100% confidence in deciding the fate of those who dont live in cities.

Rule by referendum or direct democracy is great in theory, and it can work if the community concerned is small and the voters are well-informed about the issues and the possible ramifications of what they're voting on.

Unfortunately, in most Western democracies, the majority of people are mainly focused on their day to day lives, and they really don't care that much about politics. Most have only the sketchiest idea of the complexity of the world we live in, they tend to respond in a knee-jerk manner on every issue, and they're easily swayed by propaganda that confirms their prejudices and delusional beliefs, and appeals to the basest, most selfish side of their nature.

A good recent example of how referendums can screw things up is the 2016 Brexit referendum in the UK. The side that wanted the UK to leave the EU appealed to the common belief (particularly among the English) that the country could return to the glory days of the British Empire if we left the EU, and falsely portrayed the EU as being controlled by nasty foreigners who hate Britain. Those who wanted to remain in the EU could only point to how Britain benefitted from belonging to the EU, but since life was pretty shit in Britain for a lot of people (virtually all of which was due to UK government decisions, not EU rules), many people weren't enthusiastic supporters of the status quo. Also, many people voted to leave the EU simply because the official UK government position was that we should stay, and people wanted to give the government a kicking.

The result of that referendum was 52% for leaving, and 48% for staying, so the country was pretty much split down the middle. Even though there wasn't what anyone would call a truly decisive public opinion for either leaving or staying and everyone with any sense could see that the consequences of leaving were enormous and unpredictable, the legislation for the referendum said that it would be decided by a simple majority, so the government went ahead with leaving.

Things are still a long way from settling down to a new normal, but Britain is currently experiencing serious labour shortages in some sectors of the economy due to EU citizens leaving and staying away (partly because new rules make it difficult or impossible for them to work in the UK, and partly because they don't want to work in a country where the majority of the population has said they dislike them). Brexit is causing serious tensions in Northern Ireland. Many financial jobs and investments have left London for the EU. Border checks of goods are causing huge problems for haulage firms and manufacturers who rely on Just In Time supply lines. Small UK exporters who did a lot of business with EU customers have either gone out of business or fired some of their British workers and created new jobs in new EU bases. And dealing with the legal and bureaucratic changes required by Brexit has cost the UK taxpayer a huge sum, and will continue to do so.

Other examples of referendum results that no sane person would call positive:

In November 1933, the German people were asked whether they supported the new Nazi government’s policy of withdrawing from the League of Nations and repudiating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. 95% voted in favour.

In August 1934, the German people were asked if they supported the merging the role of State President (as held by Hindenburg) with that of the Chancellor, the executive head of the government, held by Adolf Hitler. The result of this would be that Hitler could not be dismissed from office, since the constitution stated that only the head of state could dismiss the head of the government, and he would hold both positions. 88% voted in favour.

In 1959, Swiss male voters rejected, by a margin of 2-1, giving women the right to vote in federal elections.

In 1964, Proposition 14 in California asked if voters wanted to make it legal again for landlords to discriminate on racial grounds. It was approved by a margin of 2-1.

What you're talking about would probably just boil down to mob rule. Nobody needs mob rule! Mobs tend to be full of morons.