The grade 9 English assignment demanded that each of us to write a 2- or 3-page essay describing how we would improve society: What would we do to improve the quality of life for all Canadians?
This was 1986, just after pro-"wrestling" and break-dancing fads started thankfully fading from mass appeal. This was an era when global nuclear warfare (would you like to play a game?) still seemed not only possible, but probable - though Gorbechev's glasnost policies were definitely reducing tensions from the paranoid levels a few years earlier - so the concepts of freedom, democracy, and bomb-shelters appeared in quite a few of the submissions.
For my submission - a creation of pure literary genius, or so I thought - I combined the fundamentals of democracy with my recent discovery of local BBSs. I hypothesized that soon we'd be in a nationally connected world that would allow citizens from coast to coast to communicate with each other and access common resources on their home computer (be it Vic-20, or ultra-high end Commodore-64). Basically I was just describing the existing packet-switched commercial services, and the burgeoning Internet (I later created a multi-"channel", packet-oriented modem protocol on my Atari ST - basically a really primitive, foolish version of TCP), but envisioned it as a government built, publicly owned system, supplying every Canadian with this basic piece of infrastructure.
With this data communications network, I argued, we could finally build a system where government could be implemented as a pure democracy.
No longer would we have to elect local officials to carry our agenda to parliament, but now we could simply put every policy question to the people, allowing the populace to directly decide how the country will be governed.
I was certain that my idea was brilliant, and was a little disappointed when it was returned to me after marking (I was sure it would be passed on to important people for implementation. Perhaps they photocopied it?). Aside from a mark, the teacher - whose name I don't recall, though I do remember that her and her husband owned a car dealership - wrote a rather cryptic line about it being idealist and unworkable, which stung a bit, hence why this story sticks with me still today.
If for some reason I were required to rewrite that paper today, I'd probably concede the teacher's point. I would thank her for giving me a bit of cynicism and insight that perhaps I didn't have before.
After years of watching public opinion ebb and flow, I'm now of the opinion that a pure democracy would be an absolute disaster.
Apart from the fact that it would likely lead to a tyranny of the majority (where 50%+1 = someone else's agenda forced down your throat. This is of course how our system generally currently works, but in a more time-limited, detached manner), the core problem is that many voters simply don't take the responsibility required even for once-every-4-year trips to the ballot box, much less flippantly deciding each and every issue facing the government.
I certainly don't believe in an illuminati running government, and a democracy is empirically the ultimate form of government, but the small disconnect between the public and the government (the interface being elected representatives who are accountable for the government and its decisions) allows government to do what is necessary and right.
In essence it allows government to take actions that might temporarily anger the public in a short-sighted manner, but which we'll come to appreciate as time goes on. There have been countless times where polls indicated that the public was signfiicantly against of behind X, but to follow such an agenda would be disastrous. The government largely ignores such polls, not falling to populism and pandering to every shift in perception, and it blows over and the public sees the big picture.
Imagine if, instead, every night when you came home (or perhaps only once a week) there were several policy issues requiring your input.
"Should the bridge to the island airport be built?"
"Should the department of departments be privatized?"
Consider how little thought and attention people give to their several-times-a-decade visit to the ballot box. Now imagine how much worse it would be if everyone were questioned on every single government initiative.
"Well then making voting optional! Let the people who know about the topic vote!"
Such an opt-in arrangement is how "special interests" are born, and it's how they have much more sway than they perhaps should.