Imagine every decision which is made in parliament having to be voted on not just at the end but at various stages of its development. Do you think every process would slow down the workings of a nation's development? Do you see it as a good thing that everything is slowed down, or do you see the slowing down as a burden on society?

Can you imagine what power the media would hold under such conditions, with rule by public opinion?

There's a huge difference between large groups taking a long time deliberating on a point hoping to get a good decision for some aspect to be acted on by others, and monumental numbers of people deliberating on every decision on everything before anything can proceed. Any bad decision for example would become so many times worse because of the protracted methodology needed to act upon it once it has been found to be bad. More over, as a single decision may have knock on effects, those effects would need to be deliberated on and acted upon. The question is, as these procedures are so protracted, which do you spend your precious times deliberating on first, the cause or the effect? If you decide on the cause, will the effect become a cause of further effects...etc...? If you choose the effects first, does the cause further effects? If there are multiple effects, do you find your self in an even more difficult deciding on your priorities?  

Is it the case that only white, male Athenians were allowed to vote?

True. Even Spartan women had more say than Athenian women.

Then the Athenians had a meritocracy not a democracy. So much for it being the cradle of democracy. 

I know what you mean, though I still know receptionists whose eyes are not glazed over when they see you. My point is that even though philosophically speaking total democracy sounds like utopia, pragmatically things would be crushed under the burden of decision making continuously rolling forward at an artificially slow pace. Even on your holiday you would be beset by this crush of decision making which would make it almost impossible to find and time for relaxation.

 

Is it right? fair? Depends on who's winning.

I find it scary because, as TheAlaniDragonRising has intimated, this would create a society where there is no difference between public opinion and government policy, and in such a society I find it hard to see how minority rights could be guaranteed or protected. It also destroys any concept of expertise (although in fairness it's not clear how we can attribute much expertise to the career politicians of the real world either!) And, since Athens is really the only thing like a "test case" we have, someone ought to point out that Athenian government policy was crazily erratic, that poor Athenian government triggered the entirely needless Peloponnesian War, and that poor Athenian government further led to Athens losing the Peloponnesian War (which, on paper, they should never have lost).

Something like a republic is better - we basically appoint an oligarchy to govern us, and if we don't like what they do we can kick them in the ballots come election time. It's not perfect, but I'll take it over mob rule.

I'm not too sure total democracy has been put into practice or a good idea for anyone to do so.