I can't tell if you're joking or seriously advocating a pure democracy. A pure democracy is nice in theory, but it's effectively mob/majority rule. It is also a considerable burden to write, read, and vote on every piece of legislation. A representative democracy mitigates those issues by appointing a single person to represent the wishes of his or her constituents. This also slows down the progress of democracy by forcing voters to wait until they can elect a new representative. But is that a bad thing? The waiting is effectively what prevents the mob rule syndrome.
Then again, it would be difficult to bribe >50% of the population to pass a bill.
Wasn't really joking or advocating it. Just a thought experiment on the thread we were on. I suppose the answer would have to wait a few hundred years after we initiated the experiment to see where it goes off the rails.
Another variable, you mention, is term of office. If voters only "remember 6 months back" then would having elections every 6 months instead of 2 years help?
Then again, it would be difficult to bribe >50% of the population to pass a bill.