The thing about "pure democracy" is that it is a population dependent concept. I will only work with a certain amount of people. History has shown us that it breaks down at about three hundred people as does "pure anarchy" (a society without government, not the lawlessness/evil thing that a lot of people think of).
Pure democracy, in my mind, would mean that you vote on
every single decision. If you have too many people in such a system, it may take you three days to decide what to have for lunch. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't think most people would sit around the entire day deciding what to do. The way we currently live, we vote someone into "power" and they are "supposed" to act in our best interest. They usually don't unless we complain a lot and then it is usually just a small compromise to make the masses be quiet. The issue is, there were never checks and balances put in place to curb the power. Canada's system was adopted from the already corrupt British and so was the United States',
partially.
If I had to choose something that was semi-acceptable, I would pick the Swiss system. They have a plebiscite on nearly all major decisions within each Canton. That means all who wish to vote go out and vote. I'm not sure if such a system is manipulated, I am just saying that in theory it seems better than most.
Within small groups, pure democracy can work wonders provided no one argues. I have been told of situations where people argue about something and then while some are still arguing, another group just does what was being argued about. The arguing takes up time and energy and solves nothing. There needs to be agreements at the beginning to minimize or eliminate arguing, otherwise things can get very out-of-hand.
After three hundred people is a different matter.
The piece Artvision is alluding to is
HERE if anyone wishes to read it.