>I simply disagree. Laws are about people

I don't think the people in NYC would like their laws decided by the people of Appalachia and vice versa. You realize people live on land right?

>Define pure democracy.

Laws or the president decided by a popular vote would be an example.

I also think the Senate should go back to how the founders intended it with senators appointed by state legislatures.

The House is meant to represent people at the federal level. The Senate is meant to represent each state, and the president is meant to be elected by the states as is the case with the electoral college.

>criminal justice, major taxes, environment regulations, broad economic, military, and foreign policy, and basic civil rights.

Most of these should be handled at most at the state level.
Criminal Justice is mostly a state and local DA level issue.
Taxes are complicated but a higher proportion should be at a local level.
Environmental regulations should only be national where it has a direct impact on another state (ex, MN can't pollute the Mississippi river because that pollution impacts other states).
States should primarily control their economies (to the extent states want to control the economy) with the Feds primarily existing to ensure trade between the states and settle disputes.
Feds should handle the military (sans National Guard units at the state level) and foreign affairs as a representative of the states. This is why states vote for POTUS and Senate, not people (popular vote).
Basic civil rights as in the constitution exist at the federal level. Any other "right" should be at the state level unless it becomes a new amendment to the constitution.

>If the most important elections in your life are local elections, you are probably a super privileged person.

This wasn't a subjective judgement, rather it is an observation of fact that local elections have a more tangible impact on everyone than federal elections. If this isn't the case then something is terribly wrong.