It just evolved that way. The Founding Fathers didn't really want political parties to dominate U.S. politics.

our system of government. It isn't and shouldn't be.

not sleep with them

as senators were chosen by state legislatures.

The Seventeenth Amendment was a major change to the checks and balances. By making sentators directly elected, it took away the biggest power the states had in Washington.

thought it could get this bad.

at hand, not using it to ripoff the riches and people for their own obnoxious and greedy ways. The US at the present time is a very ill country. I hope it is not fatal.

because they had just come out of it and worse. We seem to be heading for what they tried to save us from and they did a great job of protacting us for 240 years. What they couldn't imagine was the technology, the massive population increase and the economy.

Many warnings were made by our costitutional founders about protecting freedom and being wary of tyrany. I also don't get the impression that many thought it could last this long.

After that, if we make it that long, comes the ballot box.

They believed people were inherently reasonable and that the structure they set up would be followed and respected because it was reasonable. They built into the structure a system of checks and balances to prevent any of the three branches of government from becoming too powerful, so it can't be said that they didn't consider the possible influence of corrupt intentions, but I don't think they anticipated that the duly-elected ostensible representatives of the people would simply disregard both the intention and the operation of the Constitution. They didn't foresee political nihilists like Bannon or completely corrupt narcissists like Trump.

. . . acting in their own enlightened self-interest, either wouldn't support people they perceived to be corrupt, or would remove such people from office at the time of the next election.

What's "wrong" with our system of government are the people themselves, when all is said and done.

It was expected that states might defend their own interests, to some extent, but what the federal government did would be for the common good.

Not the "enlightened self-interest" of that group or this group. Now it's more like a bunch of vultures fighting over a carcass then people working for the common good.

To be fair, there's always been this tendency. But the ideal was there to temper the tendency. Now, sadly, "self-interest" *is* the ideal, and where it's all self-interest there is no commons that can withstand being butchered. As I keep saying, 60 years ago a president could say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!" and be applauded. Now he'd be considered a fool, because the only appropriate thing to say is, "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you."

Ut-oh.

their slaves, a little too much credit.

Besides, we’d have decent healthcare if we’d stayed with England.

mostly treasonous. ... and rip off the wealth of the country for themselves. We are in very dire times.

In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and lawful when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and had often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed

In the United States "Consent of the governed" is a phrase found in the United States Declaration of Independence.

Using thinking similar to that of English philosopher John Locke, the founders of the United States believed in a state built upon the consent of "free and equal" citizens; a state otherwise conceived would lack legitimacy and Rational-legal authority. This was expressed, among other places, in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence (emphasis added):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Much more trouble...but we will see, because there is a chance he will.

........

It's a tale as old as time.

The Constitution is set up so that the House can be completely different every two years. That's the change to stuff stupid shit.