[quote=Darcs]It's a much more simplified version where people vote directly on issues that pertain to them as oppressed to a senate or system fro representatives.[/quote]

Ah I see what you mean.
Don't hold an overall election, just vote on each issue as it pops up.

Once again, great on paper.
But it holds two main flaws that I can think of from the top of my head.

1) It requires constant voting
It demands constant attention and focus, which can have one of two (most likely both) effects.

a) People invest large portions of their day into voting. This can lead to time taken away from work, family or simply relaxing before the next day of work. Thereby helping to contribute to more stress build up, thereby more burn-outs, and reduced performance in all aspects of life.

b) A lot of people might just say "screw it". Voting is demanding and time intensive. Yes, this does help fix the "Unmotivated/caring citizens vote" issue that typical democracy might hold. But it doesn't address the "Those who have no clue what they're doing" from voting. Cause Knowledge and motivation are two very different things. Which is fine, great even if you're in school and learning about something. But disastrous when expected to help make a decision on a matter you know nothing about.

2) It essentially rules out the expert/advisors.

Granted, the government is hardly experts on most matters. But they do tend to consults experts and advisors when making decisions. But would most citizens? Probably not.

----

And this is on top of democracies current problems with stuff such as "Majority rules".
Where people might vote for something like "All people must pray in schools" even if it violates the rights of those not religious, or of a different religion.
Just because most people agree with an issue, doesn't mean that's the right answer/opinion to be having.

Now, could I just be overly negative? That's rather likely.
I do honestly rather like the idea of voting on specific matters, it can host some benefits such as people potentially only voting on stuff they know about.
But it's still something that needs to have it's flaws pointed out early. And just because some people might use it right, doesn't mean all people will.

[quote=Darcs]Sure, if you can manipulate LITERALLY EVERY MEMBER OF A CITY-STATE.[/quote]

Note I argued that when under the impression of what you were saying was "Only privileged folk may vote".
In which case, it would be rather easy since you've already narrowed down the demographic that votes.
And on top of that, have a monopoly and whose allows to vote to begin with.

But, that was a misunderstanding on my part. So this part is honestly irrelevant.

[quote=Darcs]removing the gridlock of the senate and the HoR, and granting the people more power.[/quote]

And instead you have a gridlock of citizens.

[quote=Darcs]Wait, that everyone can vote isn't a flaw, it's like the best part about democracy.[/quote]

It is because you get people who may enter an election with a sole focus.
Some self centered such as "Mah Guns" or "Mah God must be forced on all the children".
Some based on certain feelings/prejudices "Gays shouldn't marry", "Screw the Cops! Treat them like they're all assholes!".
Some more selfless such as "Will the government help my autistic son?". 
And will focus on said issue at the exclusion/neglect of all others.

Or you may get people who vote for whatever their friend says.
Or those who pay zero attention to the election or candidates and simply go "Hmm. Liberals? Yea, I'm a Liberal. I don't care what they say. I vote for them".
Essentially our current system allows for people to vote based on biases, prejudices, or worse yet people who could not care about it in the slightest.