Childhood is worshipping the snobbish...

>The more democratic something is, the more dysfunctional it will be due to human irrationality
>Implying any government run by humans will be immune to irrationality
It is more sound to spread the chance of human error and foolishness across a wide spectrum of peoples rather than one person.

>Humans are irrational
>So instead of having checks and balances to account for this, let's instead create a system where 1 person has absolute power

>Redraw state borders for equal population
Utterly retarded idea. The AoC relied on strong states, so turning them into some horrible arbitrary mess every 10 years when the census changes is intrinsically unworkable.
>Have set term amounts to minimize corruption
More like to minimize institutional memory. By the time representatives start getting good at their jobs their term would be up, and they'd be corrupt anyway. Stop being lazy and actually vote in your congressional elections to hold your representatives accountable, don't pass retarded laws to do the job for you.
>Try to kill the camcer known as lobbying in any way possible
So you want congressmen who have no experience, and no real direction either? How are they supposed to communicate with their constituents, go door to door every week? Lobbying needs reform, not abolishment.
>Get rid of the house and senate, Have one united congress with equal representation for all states
The stupidity of this idea is reducible to the stupidity of your other ideas.

There's a reason why the modern political campaign is ran like a marketing campaign where the most money spent on ads generally wins, and not some sort of campaign on convincing people using facts and figures
Voters want low taxes and good public services. They want to reduce the deficit but want a strong military. They think too much money is spent on the trains, then get upset when not enough money was put in on train infrastructure.
Giving power to 10 people in a room, or one person, who's entire job is to think rationally about a decision, is easier for them to come to a more coherent solution on a problem than when you assign the same job to 1000 random people entirely separated from each other, emotionally manipulate various sections of them with various rhetoric at various amounts, and tally the results. Bill Clinton and New Labour are what happens when voter desires collide with political and economic realities.
A person can sit down and think long and hard about the facts and figures and come to a logical conclusion. A voter does not do so, or at least on a level that matters, and is extremely swayed by both rhetoric and authority.

I mean for fuck's sake, if voters were truly the rational people you say they were, we wouldnt have our current president

>I mean for fuck's sake, if voters were truly the rational people you say they were, we wouldnt have our current president
>Booty Blasted about the election

Fuck off dumbass. Your premise against democracy is that human beings are inherently flawed and irrational and therefore cannot govern effectively, yet you then turn around and claim that your version of government, still run by humans, is somehow able to magically avoid the failures inherent of all humans. You think monarchies haven't gone bankrupt? You think oligarchies haven't made geopolitical errors costing them their nations survival? Read a book on history dumbass, and learn some basic logic.

>using the election as an example means Im upset about it
Lmao nice try. I even voted for Trump, so this really means jackshit.

If voters were the rational people you think they are, Trump and his complete disregard for concrete policy details would not have even made it past the primaries with all his opponents, even Jeb Bush, having a more sound and rational determination about their government policy. The entire election from the moment Trump came down the escalator was emotionally visceral, and continues to be so after the election.
Disprove pic related without spouting some outdated idea that humans are rational beings, and congrats you've BTFO authoritarians forever

Nice revisionism sweetie

how is it revisionism? it's a fact that changes to legislative procedure and eletions led to high turnover of representatives in the states.

> couldn't collect taxes or tariffs, so practically no funding
>no army, states had to literally crowdfund militia to stop crime
>no judicial or executive branch, no real power at all
>states create own currency, leads to economic chaos and depression
>practically libertarian society and economy means lack of most modern social welfare programs - people starving on the streets, dying of preventable disease
>EVERY STATE is represented equally in Congress - The 600k population of Wyoming has the same power as the 40 million population of California
>unanimous votes required to change everything - nothing can ever get done due to pure contrarianism
Childhood is admiring the Constitution, Adolescence is admiring the Articles of Confederation, and Adulthood is realizing that the Constitution was necessary all along.

>If voters were the rational people you think they are
Nice hallucination. Never once did I say that voters are rational. You are making the claim that a government run by any mass of people is doomed to fail because the masses are composed of individuals who are fundamentally flawed. But at the same time you are claiming that your version of ideal government, STILL RUN BY THE SAME FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED HUMANS, is somehow better than democracy. It isn't. All governments are still the same, still run by irrational emotional humans well prone to error.

> couldn't collect taxes or tariffs, so practically no funding
could have been reformed instead of writing a new constitution
>no army, states had to literally crowdfund militia to stop crime
could have been reformed instead of writing a new constitution
>no judicial or executive branch, no real power at all
could have been reformed instead of writing a new constitution
>states create own currency, leads to economic chaos and depression
lmao you think this changed after 1786?? The history of the early republic is replete with a shit ton of circulating currencies. The Constitution DID NOT stop this from happening in an age where money was harder to circulate out of localities.
>practically libertarian society and economy means lack of most modern social welfare programs
wtf? You think this changed at all in the new Republic? anyway you think this was seriously tried at all before the 20th century?
>>EVERY STATE is represented equally in Congress - The 600k population of Wyoming has the same power as the 40 million population of California
The Senate in the United States does this, and this fact was crucial in creating an imbalanced political system that overrepresented smaller and rural states throughout American history, house of reps be damned.
>unanimous votes required to change everything - nothing can ever get done due to pure contrarianism
could have been reformed instead of writing a new constitution.

>could have been reformed instead of writing a new constitution.
>could have been reformed instead of writing a new constitution.
>could have been reformed instead of writing a new constitution.
>could have been reformed instead of writing a new constitution.
I guess now you see why a big reform was needed.

>I guess now you see why a big reform was needed.
nope.
all of the things you point out can be subsumed under the theme of "weak central government". EVERYONE agreed that this needed to be reformed, even opponents of the new constitution. Before the Convention, however, most people couldn't have possible imagined a government as powerful as that created at the Constitutional Convention. That was because it was a plot by the squirearchy to regain control of the nation to rule in the interest of the Rentier class of which they were all a part.

Adulthood is realizing the American Revolution was a mistake, a bunch of freemasons creating a country nobody wanted over a very lenient tax they should have paid for the protection they received during the frenvh and indian war.

The logical endpoint of an enlightened and benevolent dictatorship is creating a massive supercomputer to rule us. It lives forever, will have no human desires to distract or corrupt it, can effectively run the whole country without having to delegate, and won't need to choose a successor
And if anyone thinks it's unrealistic, I think asking a human to be all of this isn't too realistic either

How about a ban on corporate donations and only allow donations made by individuals, at a certain amount at least which could be verified through tax returns or some other manner. Atm DC is more corrupt than California with inadequate accountability.
"Corporations aren't people."

>is more corrupt than California
wat...? California isn't exceptional in the department

Exactly so K Street is even worse. Millions of dollars in shady under the table deals all year. Military contracts. This is higher leagues corruption than anything a single state can muster considering the city drives one of the highest metropolitan GDPs in the country.

>Have set term amounts to minimize corruption
mexico has this on their president, he's only allowed one term of 6 years in the hopes that not needing to get re-elected would minimize corruption

In reality it creates a president who lacks institutional memory, so they just keep the same cabinet from the previous administration, which leads to the same corrupt ministers running the country for decades.

>I think asking a human to be all of this isn't too realistic either
It is which is why no one in the right mind ever claims government is the most perfect instrument ever devised, merely better than the alternative, which is rule by the strong.