Consider the Federal Reserve, one of the few "undemocratic" institutions in our government. The idea is that board members are granted the power to make policy for the Federal Reserve because the average individual citizen has neither the time nor the expertise required to make such important decisions. A better example is the election of representatives and senators to the congress. Although Senators are not exactly proportionally representative, it's not really relevant to the question. Again average citizens do not have the time to listen to debate, research on their own and vote on bills introduced for legislation, assuming they have common sense enough to decide. There have been examples of working against the republican form of government, such as in California and Proposition 13. The tedious task of passing a bill was bypassed by directly going to the people. Referendums were embraced in California, and now the state's government is a mess. It seems that when people ask for democracy, they actually mean a republic, considering the pitfalls of implementing too democratic a system. What are some thoughts on this? Then again, maybe democracy has become synonymous with republic.

IMO, that is correct. If we had a true democracy, we would spend every waking moment voting on bills (bills that were presumably put before the voters by average citizens). These bills would most likely be frivolous, a complete waste of the voters time. As you pointed out, most people don't have the time to seriously research a bill (except for people like me, with waaay to much time on their hands). But I think that a taste of a true democracy in this country would be refreshing (if we could only implement a truly democratic system for a week or so). But then there are always problems with the republican system, too. It's not unheard of for people to elect representatives who represent only their own interests. Besides, even today we can see the problems with this system. Yesterday on C-SPAN I watched as the House of Representative argued for an hour or so over a resolution regarding something that had occurred earlier that day in Congress (a relevant link is provided here), when they could have been doing something productive. But I suppose there are pitfalls with any system of government, since we have yet to see a perfect form of government occur on this planet (I choose "occur" because I don't think that any human can just dream up a perfect government, it has to come about in its own right). But it seems that I have digressed a tad bit from the topic at hand. But in summary:

1. Democracy can be bad.
2. So can a republic.
3. People usually mean the latter when they talk about the former.

I think hardly anyone in the USA truly wants literal democracy, even if it were possible with such a vast and complex nation. True democracy would mean that 51% of the people could tyrannize the other 49%. A republican system can result in the same thing, of course, but it lessens the possibility a bit by instituting a series of formal steps which must be followed in order to enact decisions.

What the USA really has might be described (with tongue slightly in cheek) as a broad-based, fairly benign, plutocratic
oligarchy.

The total instability that would be created by a truly democratic state embodies my disagreements with the Libertarians. People have proven time and time again that they can not be trusted with any more power than is offered by a representative democracy. I think things like the electoral college make our power a little too indirect, but by and large, people can not handle true political power intelligently without dynamic checks and balances.

If that embodies your disagreement with Libertarianism, you might want to check your assumptions. I don't know of any libertarian argument in favor of pure democratic rule of the 51 percent over the 49.

Where did you get the idea that Libertarians advocate pure democracy?

My point is that the big failing of pure democracy is shared with the libertarian views. It is legislation on demand that I refer to. Like the fact that libertarians advocate direct voting on every move the government makes from military decisions to local budget issues. The obscene level of government decentralization and voter impact libertarians want leads to the same anarchy that pure democracy would.

I agree that "true" democracy would mean that we'd all spend our whole time voting on issues and would most likely not have time for work, family, friends, etc.

And also that straightforward democracy results, as often as not, in elective ditatorship, and even tyrrany.

So the kind of delegated democracy that you get in a US-style republic is better than full democracy. The same effect can also derive from a bicameral legislature, especially if the selection methods for both are dramatically different (despite its faults, and the frankly ridiculous appointments, job perks and heredities that get people there, the British house of Lords fulfils much the same function most of the time).

Personally, though, I think that we've taken elected representative democracy as far as it can go - too far in some areas. I think that in some cases a little direct democracy wouldn't hurt, especially if it was to the same level of depth, analysis and argument we expect from elected representatives on a particular issue.

How could we expect ordinary lay people to devote the time and energy required yet still function in their own lives? Easy - we do the same all the time from the ordinary lay people we expect to stand in on juries in our court systems. I think that some kind of selection by lot of ordinary people could add some much-needed perspective to our electoral systems. (Indeed, in the UK, I'd like to see this kind of thing replace the House of Lords altogether).

I think it would have to be as an adjunct to representative democracy - I can't see it working on it's own. But it just might be an antidote to the political village syndrome that elected representatives mostly fall prey to, where the concerns of politicians and lobbyists drive the agenda more than the concerns of the people.