If 100% of eligible people voted, it still wouldn't be a pure democracy. It's not how the system is designed.
Our system is built on the assumption that most people don't have the time or capacity to understand all the issues, so we elect people to do the understanding for us.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It seems like you're saying that to be a democracy it must be that everyone has a say/vote in every decision made about every issue. Is that right?
I'm saying that more people voting won't change the choice of representatives. If people are voting for the same ineffectual or destructive candidates, it makes no difference whether turnout is 300 million or 100 million.
The solution isn't to get more people voting. It's to run better candidates.
Technically that is correct. According to my fourth grade social studies teacher a true or "direct" democracy is one in which each eligible voter votes on each issue. What we have is a representative democracy or a Republic where we vote on representatives that we assume will then vote on the issues in our best interests.
Our system is built on the assumption that most people don't have the time or capacity to understand all the issues, so we elect people to do the understanding for us.