...and to the democracy, for which it stands?

Hey, kiddies, it's time for your civics lesson of the day.
A couple of years ago, I was having an argument with a young friend of mine (who the dwainker met this past May when this friend stayed at Casa de los Dwain). Somehow, we had gotten on the topic of whether the United States was a republic or a democracy. He believed that the US was a democracy, while I knew that it was a republic. He pointed out that we held elections and voted on some legislation. I pointed out that we elected leaders who would then decide on legislation, and that the president was not democratically elected, but instead that electors were voted on, thus the electoral college and not a popular vote win. This went back and forth for a bit, and I gave in slightly, saying that the US was a democratic republic. He wouldn't agree to that, so I finally threw down my ace in the hole "Wes, say the Pledge of Allegiance for me." "Um, okay. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the...shut up." And there you have it.
Now, the reason that I'm telling you this story is that most Americans believe as young Vasily did. My question is, why? Does democracy sound so much better than republic? And will we ever become a democracy?
The real meat of my post lies in that last question. See, America couldn't really be a democracy when it was first formed. Democracy relies on people being able to vote on decisions in a prompt manner and for those decisions to be carried out with equal promptness. This would never work in 1783. Too many people over way too much area. The Ancient Greeks tried this once (I wonder if we'll ever be known as Ancient Americans). Athens actually was a functioning democracy for a few years, but it worked for them because it was a small city-state with only about 50,000 citizens who could vote, if that many. It's also important to note that the democracy lasted until the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, which resulted in Athens and it's semi-slow decision making process getting their asses kicked by Sparta and its king, thus ending democracy in the world.
So, instead, the founding fathers decided that the best choice was a republican form of government, where the people elected representatives who would then gather and vote on issues in a timely manner. Now, the problem with this is that the people's will is not always carried out and the representatives are often swayed by other forces, such as special interest groups, political alliances, or personal opinion.
Now, look, I'm not saying that the republic is a bad system, I'm just saying that it needs work. Actually, I think that we could morph into a democracy pretty easily. Sadly, I got this idea from American Idol.
Think about it: every week, millions of people vote on who should be a pop star. The little starlets have to get up there each week and sing various types of songs and then America votes on it. Why not do that with politicians? Have all the Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and other third parties get on TV, debate about various topics for five or six, and slowly the group gets whittled down. Every American is given an ID number and a PIN and enter them when they vote. This prevents double voting and gives the system some security. This system is fast, as Fox can tell the results of AI 23 hours later. It's as accurate as polling centers are. It would save loads of money from having to print ballots, maintain machinery, and open poll centers. Americans could vote on any issue they wanted instead of having to "write to their congressman" about issues. It also gets people more involved in the system and they're more likely to vote. This system would effectively wipe out the Legislative Branch of government, although it would still exist to come up with legislation. We'd still need a POTUS to make snap decisions concerning emergency matters (war, hurricane relief, etc.) and to control the Executive Branch. However, the term for POTUS would be changed to one year with a five term limit. Since this system would essentially eliminate campaigning, the President could focus on the country more than having to "get their face out there" and "press the flesh." Maintaining the vote tabulation machines would be fairly inexpensive, especially since the House of Reps would be pretty well wiped out by this. The Senate would stick around mainly as an oversight board for various departments, but would be relatively powerless compared to what it is now. Political parties would fade away since there's no campaigning and people would not be limited to be lumped into one category or another. This system would take away power from the upper class and give it to everyone. People could log onto the internet and look up the vote records to insure that their vote was counted.
The people would be informed on the legislation that is put before them before they vote, with both sides being debated and creating an informed electorate. The Judicial Branch would be left untouched, really, except the Supreme Court really wouldn't debate on whether cases were constitutional or unconstitutional, since the main bulk of the Constitution would be thrown out.
Of course, I was talking to my father about this idea the other day and at the end he says, "I can see it now, a governorship in your future." I don't think he really gets the idea.
Yeah, it's pretty crazy, and it'll never happen since it would have to be approved by Congress and that would be like signing your own death warrant, but, hey, it's something to think about.
Also, I just took the Political Compass test and found out that I am a Liberal Libertarian, putting me in league with Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and The Dalai Lama. The site also terms me a Communist Anarchist. Heh.