We'd still need executives, but legislature should be reduced to putting bills before the people.
This. I'M not in the US, so copyright laws are less of an issue here, but even without that number of times I find myself thinking that this system sucks is over the threshold. I mean all politicians act like they voters agree with everything they do because you voted for them even if what they're doing is the exact opposite of what you thought they'd be doing.
That's what government is.
I'm fine with it, personally. Even many libertarians are when it comes down to it, an awful lot seem believe in collective enforcement of property rights....
That's a great idea! In fact, I can see a business opportunity for an enterprising individual (or group of individuals, as it may be) under such a system: one could assemble a team of advisors who would analyse and debate legislation in order to decide on an optimal outcome for the country. Their advice could then be given to paying subscribers, who would vote in accordance with it, and thus pass legislation which benefits the country. If the subscribers disagree with the advisors, then they could subscribe to a different team of advisors after a period of time, and use that team's advice. This way, the subscribers get the benefit of deciding the country's future without the hassle of having to deeply analyse issues each-and-every time a new piece of law comes up. This is especially beneficial if they are not knowledgeable in or care little about a given field, but do not wish to leave legislation of that field to a small, entirely self-selected group of individuals (democracy is about representing the interests of the whole, after all).
Yes, I've got the basics all sorted out. To paraphrase Phil Karlton, the hard part is thinking up a name for the damn thing! I was thinking something edgy and retro like "The Parliament" or perhaps "Congress", but I'm open to other suggestions as well.
Maybe some people would do what you suggest. Others would not.
If you fundamentally disagree with direct democracy then that's fine, but painting at as no different from representative democracy, in which a person has no direct say, is just wrong.
At the moment it's so much that even the pople voting on it can't read all that much.