Here are some quotes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where the US Constitution was debated and later accepted.
Many of the framers of the Constitution understood very clearly that democracy was an oppressive system of government, but ironically, they had to acquiesce to the tyrannical will of the majority of citizens and went through with ratifying it anyway.
(Also...their "check and balance" in the Legislative branch against unrestrained democracy? The Senate... Which has been one of the most corrupt branches of the government for literal centuries.)
Our chief danger arises from the democratic parts of our constitutions. It is a maxim which I hold incontrovertible, that the powers of government exercised by the people swallows up the other branches. None of the constitutions have provided sufficient checks against the democracy.
-Edmund Randolph.
The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Massts. it has been fully confirmed by experience that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute.
-Elbridge Gerry.
We are not indeed constituting a British Government, but a more dangerous monarchy, an elective one. We are introducing a new principle into our system, and not necessary as in the British Govt. where the Executive has greater rights to defend. Do gentlemen mean to pave the way to hereditary Monarchy? Do they flatter themselves that the people will ever consent to such an innovation? If they do I venture to tell them, they are mistaken. The people never will consent. And do gentlemen consider the danger of delay, and the still greater danger of a a rejection not for a moment but forever, of the plan which shall be proposed to them. Notwithstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy; the genius of the people is in favor of it, and the genius of the people must be consulted. He could not but consider the federal system as in effect dissolved by the appointment of this Convention to devise a better one. And do gentlemen look forward to the dangerous interval between the extinction of an old, and the establishment of a new Governmt. and to the scenes of confusion which may ensue. He hoped that nothing like a monarchy would ever be attempted in this Country. A hatred to its oppressions had carried the people through the late Revolution. Will it not be eno’ to enable the Executive to suspend offensive laws, till they shall be coolly revised, and the objections to them overruled by a greater majority than was required in the first instance. He never could agree to give up all the rights of the people to a single Magistrate. If more than one had been fixed on, greater powers might have been entrusted to the Executive. He hoped this attempt to give such powers would have its weight hereafter 〈as an argument〉 for increasing the number of the Executive.
-notes on George Mason's speech.
(Even though Mason acknowledged a democratic government was more dangerous than the British monarchy which had oppressed Americans, he thought it was ok for democracy to be implemented anyway...)
This was the only defence agst. the inconveniences of democracy consistent with the democratic form of Govt. All civilized Societies would be divided into different Sects, Factions, & interests, as they happened to consist of rich & poor, debtors & creditors, the landed the manufacturing, the commercial interests, the inhabitants of this district, or that district, the followers of this political leader or that political leader, the disciples of this religious sect or that religious sect. In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger. What motives are to restrain them? A prudent regard to the maxim that honesty is the best policy is found by experience to be as little regarded by bodies of men as by individuals. Respect for character is always diminished in proportion to the number among whom the blame or praise is to be divided. Conscience, the only remaining tie is known to be inadequate in individuals: In large numbers, little is to be expected from it. Besides, Religion itself may become a motive to persecution & oppression. — These observations are verified by the Histories of every Country antient & modern.
[...]
The lesson we are to draw from the whole is that where a majority are united by a common sentiment and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a Republican Govt. the Majority if united have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere, & thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests & parties, that in the 1st. place a majority will not be likely at the same moment to have a common interest separate from that of the whole or of the minority; and in the 2d. place, that in case they shd. have such an interest, they may not be apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us then to try this remedy, and with that view to frame a republican system on such a scale & in such a form as will controul all the evils wch. have been experienced.
-James Madison's argument in defense of democracy
(Spoiler alert, this "remedy" has failed. Can we revise our system of government to one which actually is able to stop oppression now?)
The error was now seen by every one. The members most tenacious of republicanism, he observed, were as loud as any in declaiming agst. the vices of democracy. ... Give all power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all power to the few they will oppress the many. Both therefore ought to have power, that each may defend itself agst. the other. ... No temporary Senate will have firmness en’o’ to answer the purpose. ... They suppose Seven years a sufficient period to give the Senate an adequate firmness, from not duly considering the amazing violence & turbulence of the democratic spirit. When a great object of Govt. is pursued, which seizes the popular passions, they spread like wild fire, and become irresistable. ... As to the Executive, it seemed to be admitted that no good one could be established on Republican principles. Was not this giving up the merits of the question; for can there be a good Govt. without a good Executive. The English model was the only good one on this subject. The Hereditary interest of the King was so interwoven with that of the Nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad — and at the same time was both sufficiently independent and sufficiently controuled, to answer the purpose of the institution at home. one of the weak sides of Republics was their being liable to foreign influence & corruption. Men of little character, acquiring great power become easily the tools of intermedling neibours.
-notes on Alexander Hamilton's speech
Alexander Hamilton believed the President, Senate, and judges should serve for life "during periods of good behavior". But he was Eurocentric and admired the British system of government, and therefore was still trapped within the democratic mindset...
After the Constitutional Convention accepted the Constitution and sent it to the state governments to debate on, Hamilton was one of the Constitution's primary defenders in the series of essays called The Federalist Papers, despite his own proposals for government being rejected...
But is this a Republican Govt. it will be asked? Yes, if all the Magistrates are appointed, and vacancies are filled, by the people, or a process of election originating with the people.
[...]
II The Assembly to consist of persons elected by the people to serve for three years.
III. The Senate to consist of persons elected to serve during good behaviour; their election to be made by electors chosen for that purpose by the people: in order to this the States to be divided into election districts. On the death, removal or resignation of any Senator his place to be filled out of the district from which he came.
If local community members are allowed to nominate individuals for vacancies, and give their reasoning as to why their nominee is qualified, then would this not satisfy all the positive things that "representative" democracies claim they wish to accomplish? Appointments would of course be made by a governor or qualified committee, who would vet the individuals nominated by the general public, as well as be able to nominate candidates themselves if the public does not nominate anyone who is qualified.
I think I read a comment by a communist somewhere who claimed this was similar to how the "Democratic People's Republic" of North Korea theoretically appoints local government officials?
Voting for qualified electors who then chose politicians is the original purpose of the Electoral College. Originally, people did not vote for the president at all. They only voted for electors, who were knowledgeable individuals in the local community, who then deliberated amongst themselves to pick the most qualified individual to be president. This "check and balance" against democracy has also failed, since the electors are just a ceremonial holdover who are beholden to their state's popular vote (which has the consequence of amplifying Republican power)...
But 〈he〉 sees the Union dissolving or already dissolved — he sees evils operating in the States which must soon cure the people of their fondness for democracies — he sees that a great progress has been already made & is still going on in the public mind. He thinks therefore that the people will in time be unshackled from their prejudices; and whenever that happens, they will themselves not be satisfied at stopping where the plan of Mr. R. wd. place them, but be ready to go as far at least as he proposes.
-notes on Alexander Hamilton's speech
After 250 years of democratic failures and multiple bouts of "dissolving", perhaps the people are almost ready to unshackle their pro-democratic prejudices and accept an autocratic form of government which actually upholds justice? Less than 100 years ago Germany and many other nations were fed up enough with democracy to try something different. In fact, many in the US were about ready to do the same:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_dictatorship#Media_supportMaybe if Hamilton wasn't such a Britophile elitist, his plan would have gained more traction:
I believe the British government forms the best model the world ever produced, and such has been its progress in the minds of the many, that this truth gradually gains ground. This government has for its object public strength and individual security. It is said with us to be unattainable. If it was once formed it would maintain itself. All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrouling disposition requires checks. ... It is admitted that you cannot have a good executive upon a democratic plan. See the excellency of the British executive — He is placed above temptation — He can have no distinct interests from the public welfare. Nothing short of such an executive can be efficient.
[...]
But the people are gradually ripening in their opinions of government — they begin to be tired of an excess of democracy
...Hamilton was so close.
Gentlemen say we need to be rescued from the democracy. But what the means proposed?
A democratic assembly is to be checked by a democratic senate, and both these by a democratic chief magistrate.
The end will not be answered — the means will not be equal to the object.
It will, therefore, be feeble and inefficient.
-excerpt from Hamilton's notes on his speech