The problem is deeper than that. All representative governments known to man ended up isolated from their voters. Once they gain enough power to control the country they don't need voters anymore; or they can keep up the pretense by limiting the choice (Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee.) This is what's happening.
This is a natural path of regression of every representative government - simply because there is nothing standing guard, protecting the voters from a megalomaniac Senator or President. As we have learned, the voters "have no standing" to question the constitutional validity of the President. The system is now self-contained; it elects the necessary front men, and it protects them from the voters, and the Supreme Court rubber-stamps all the abominations as constitutional and lawful. This is going to happen to every represenative system - and it's quite a miracle that the USA managed to last as a largely free country for as long as it did.
From this point of view it is clear that once the old set of fools is kicked out of Congress, the new set of fools will descend into the still warm seats. Often those would be completely random people, those who did nothing of value and did not risk their life and limb in the struggle. This is something we can see in Northern Africa today; one group does the fighting, and when it's all over a carefully prepared and candy-wrapped President in a $5,000 suit is delivered on an airplane and takes command. The mass of rebels may not even realize at the time what just has happened; and when they do, it's back to square one.
In other words, it all depends on personal honesty and integrity of all the leaders of the uprising. In Russia, for example, in 1917, the leaders started to fight each other practically immediately, which culminated with Stalin killing them all by 1937 and seizing complete control. In Germany Hitler had many of his old friends in SA killed when they became a liability. Infighting among the victorious is pretty bad, especially because the parties still have considerable resources under their command.
Your ideal government has to be controlled by a person or a machine that is incorruptible and wants humankind to prosper. Its logic should not be a democracy; why should the government obey if 99% of the voters vote to hang the remaining 1%? This means that the government has to be impersonal, and probably inhuman. It also has to be ruthless and efficient in doing its job. If someone is guilty of murder he is terminated, or shipped out to a faraway planet to live the rest of his very short life wandering the surface in a spacesuit, until that spacesuit fails. This is not what a human would want to do; but this is what the human collective benefits from the most.
So it would be undemocratic. A monarch may listen to his subjects, and he may even do what they petition him to do, but he doesn't have to. Would such a society be free? To some extent, yes. For example, today you are free to get into your car and drive anywhere you please. But you are not free to drive that same car into a crowd, on purpose. Same with politics. You would be free to do whatever you personally want to do - within the same limits as any free society accepts, like "your rights stop where mine begin." But there would be no freedom to attack the political system itself.
Interestingly enough, the modern China uses something that is very close to this fictional AI-driven computer government that I described. The Chinese are largely free to do business, we have evidence of that all around us, in every room. This very keyboard is probably made in China. But dare to question the Party, and disappear you will.
So, I wonder, is this the best model of a government in this century? I have no illusions, the Chinese Communist Party is not immune to the same sickness that permeated US politics. Just in last year one of party bosses was very publicly taken down. But, as a larger collective, they do have some immunity. OTOH the same party in USSR was unable to survive - and it rotted out, and died.
All in all, the government by men will be always vulnerable to the desires of those men that it employs. That's what caused anarchists to show up. They deny the need for a government; instead they promote small, fluid groups of people who associate - and disassociate - as they see fit. There is no one single theory of anarchism, so most proponents just make one up as they go.
I'm not familiar with anarchism; but democracy is inherently unstable, and monarchy/dictatorship is too much dependent on the benevolence of the monarch. IMO, the benevolent artificial monarch, one that could reason but has no human desires, would be the ideal solution. Unfortunately, it's nothing but deus ex machina at this time. It is also one step away from becoming the Skynet. If that is not in the cards, perhaps anarchism is the next best option. It is also likely to be the most free one among all. The sad fact about a large government is that once it has enough power to care for you, it can equally easily destroy you. From that point of view any strong government is undesirable. The USSR's government was ultimately strong - it took all the worker's earnings, and in exchange provided him with a fixed list of social benefits that he may or may not need. That same strong government held the life of the citizen in its hand and could destroy that life whenever it wanted.
I would suggest you take this course to get a better understanding of the foundations of our country and WHY it was able to stand for 200 years. Our government was founded on absolute truths and principles that were well known and agreed upon at the time, being from the Bible, and with most of the citizens being Christian, at least in some form. The citizen’s inner character was the defense of the outer framework of the constitution. When the inner character and Christian worldview of the majority in our country began to be corrupted through the infiltration of atheists and communists into the mainline denominations and by the social darwinists infiltration into the public school systems and universities, the foundation began to rot away, just as termites can rot the foundation of your house. There is no incorruptible human, as all Christians know, therefore, a country must have a constitution with a rule of law that provides checks and balances for power, but again, it depends on having a citizenry that is moral and self disciplined to enforce that constitution and not vote themselves free gifts from the treasury, and that cares enough to give their children the same Christian education that they had (which was true in America until the early 1900s, even public schools taught Christianity and morality.) To suggest that a system similar to Communist China is better than our Constitutional republic is absolutely ludicrous. I can’t believe you are on FR posting something like that. Maybe I misunderstood and if so, I apologize but with the state of our country, and then to have someone on a conservative website like FR suggest that is very troubling.
Interesting thesis on government!
I wonder if our republic would last longer if there was a hard coded limit on the ratio of representatives/citizens and if that number gets too skewed the country would HAVE to be split in half allowing the ratios to return back to a better level.
Also I think that besides constitutional amendments that any law Passed by congress should have a built in generational expiration date on it, so it would have to come back up on the floor for another vote, thus it would consume congresses time to maintain existing law and keep them from too mucgh meddling on passing new laws.
Also in terms of term limit the first election for any government position should be a simple majority any adn subsequent election should have to add 5% to each election cycle, and failing the incumbant winning this all new candidates would have to ran in a runoff which would be simple majority again.
1st election:
Cadidate Joe vs. Candidate Frank
Joe wins with 51%
2nd Election:
Candidate Joe vs. Challneger Sarah
Joe needs 56% or more to win, Joe Wins with 57%
3rd election:
Candidate Joe vs. Challenger Tina
Joe Needs 61% to win, only gets 58%
Runoff election triggered, Joe is outta there so they have to run Challenger Bill vs. Challenger Tina and whomever get a simple majority in the run off wins the seat.
Something like this in my opinion would be far more effective than any term limits as the terms would limit themselves and put the incumbents in a severe disadvantage.