I'm not seeing the relevance. If you're relating this to the American system, it's even more irrelevant because it was never intended to be a "representative democracy" but a Republic of sovereign states, and the founders knew "democracy" was dogshit anyway and that's why they didn't create one.
Unfortunately the kike faggot Yankee niggerlovers won the civil war and we lost our Republic. Franklin's words were prophetic I guess.
It only survived 2 centuries, the democratic crap
You can also add restrictions, as to who gets to vote as you stated, it will give it more chances to remain viable, long term, and still in the end you have the same problem of vested interests and misplaced incentives driving the entire project over the cliff
The degeneration into a "democracy" was the direct result of a civil war, though, in the case of America. As soon as the covenant of sovereign states was destroyed, the idea of local governance (the "Jeffersonian model") was also destroyed, and that model was designed to combat exactly what you're talking about.
Ultimately the problem is allowing any centralization of power. As soon as that starts it never stops and just gets worse. The wrong side winning the civil war was the beginning of the end.
(post is archived)