only a small percentage of the American public can correctly answer the question "who is the Vice President"
To my mind--assuming this statistic is accurate, which I doubt--this is not an incredibly strong case for dismantling democracy. First of all this clown Biden is not accountable to regular folks and is likely to do nothing for them. Second, just because they don't know his name does not mean they are not intelligent people who can vocalize their grievances and make meaningful contributions to public discourse. In an office setting, if someone does not know the VP of the company, does that mean they forfeit their right to voice their opinions on concerns that affect them in the day-to-day office setting?
Also, American politics on a national scale is not a good example for a healthy, functioning democracy. I don't remember voting on unlimited super PAC donations (a very relevant concern for our democratic system) or on waging wars in the Middle East. To use a dysfunctional democracy as an example for why democracy doesn't work is a straw man argument.
I am not convinced that the ideal set-up for PMR is to give all decision-making power to a small portion of powerful and wealthy people and groups. This means an automatic override of the free will of regular folks. This assumes that wealthy & powerful are sufficiently low entropy to make decisions based on the public good over self-interest, and to me the data abundantly debunks this theory. This was the idea of the British in India: the savages are clearly unable to take care of themselves, so let us run their society for their benefit. It turns out that if people do not have a voice in how their government should work, their concerns are ignored at best, and usually ends up with them being trampled on and disenfranchised.
the upcoming decision in November will not be based on issues, it will be based on moronic tit for tat gotcha politics, reflecting what actually works.
I'm going to play the media card here, and say this is what happens when you have massive corporations that build weapons and seek unlimited profits setting the frame for our vital public discourse, rather than professional journalists. The difference can be clearly seen between NPR and Fox News: one seeks to create dialogue whereas the other seeks to frame it in politically advantageous ways. If the media did not focus on this garbage tit-for-tat stuff but prioritized real issues, the candidates would be forced to address those issues.
Your average bureaucrat is so far removed from being able to grasp the complexity of current and emerging technology, that they can no longer even fake it, and government contracts more and more are bureaucrats handing over their wallet to scoundrels - but its your wallet they are handing over.
This is evidence for more accountability among our leaders, not less. Do you think this situation would disappear if large businesses ran the show? They would be even more self-serving than politicians; they are even less accountable than politicians, who at the very least are nominally accountable (for now).
At a more fundamental level, there is how the world is, and how we wish it would be. Part of effectiveness is being grounded in the data and not our desires for how PMR should be constructed.
Certainly I am letting my idealism show, but in the social world the rule set is far more malleable than in physics. I am surprised you take this tack: you talk often about setting intentions above and beyond normal and shooting for better intent in all interactions. Do you not believe that the world has been transformed precisely because certain individuals have looked at society and said "This can and must be changed."