It isn't a secret that the United States isn't really a democracy, but a republic whose citizens claim otherwise. Lately, though, I've been wondering if a pure democracy is practical, or even really possible. A democracy where each and every person had a direct say in the decisions made by the country.
Now from what I can see, there are really four things keeping this from becoming practical, and that is:
A) people's ignorance of the issues
B) the power of money to sway opinion
C) giving every citizen the resources to vote
D) the multitude of issues to vote on
So the model I have been turning over in my mind to combat these problems goes like this. To combat A, we can bring political issues into more direct focus. Encourage newspapers to have a political section in the newspaper, the radio to devote time to talk about political issues (more than it does currently, at least), and to have channels on the TV devoted to political debate.
Now at the beginning of the week, five issues are selected and are debated for the entire week. Politicians or anyone really thats good at political debate would debate over these issues over the course of the entire week, with reruns of the day's debates played at night to increase exposure, and periodically the channels will summarize and provide a list of pros and cons for each side of each issue (while keeping as objective as possible - I'll get to this later). Throughout the week, through ads on other TV stations, for example, people will be encouraged to become informed on the issues and to vote. Then on Sunday, the issues will be summarized throughout the day, and people can visit kiosks or go on the internet themselves, log in, and vote for these issues, as well as vote on what issues should be discussed for the following week. Then once the outcome is decided, the appropriate laws (or whatever) are put into effect.
Now I haven't addressed the rest of the problems yet. The power of money to sway opinion, for instance, could be devastating, as lobbyists would instead turn to the people and give gifts to encourage them to vote one way or another. About the only way to combat this is to encourage people to keep informed and make up their own minds, and then keep the summaries of the issues as objective as possible, and a way to keep the media objective is competition, much like how a news channel has to keep honest to keep its integrity and its audience today.
The last problem I see is that the multitude of issues cannot possibly be covered with this system (and the really important issues might never get brought to the table). For that I suggest we still keep a representative body that can continue to make decisions and laws, but basically use this model as a 'check' on that system; much like the three branches of government can 'check' each other, the people can 'check' the government.
Why do I think it's important that something like this exists at all? First, we pride ourselves on being a nation "Of the people, for the people, and by the people", yet, in general, the people have such a small voice, if any voice at all. On top of this, we vote on people with a full package of issues, not on issues individually, which means if you agree with a person on one issue, but not on another, you have to decide which is most important to you and sacrifice the other issue. The current system also detaches people from the issues and makes them feel like they aren't in control of their own lives. This model allows people to WANT to keep informed on current issues, to be more knowledgeable, and to have a direct impact on how their nation runs.
So is this practical? Is some other model more practical than the one I have devised? Is this model much closer to a pure democracy? What are the flaws in this model?
