Edit: sorry for the long ass comment that you never asked for lmao

The problem with democracy is when you try to put too many people under the same democracy.

All the happiest, least corrupt, highest educated places in the world are small democratic nations.

I understand that this might be an oversimplification, they also tend to be rich, old, and have access to natural resources. You can't just say "local government!" As a magic spell in the middle of the desert and solve everyone's problems in a swoop.

On the other hand, maybe they're rich and old because small nations work well.

In any case, the point still stands. If we were inventing democracy from the ground up today, and one man suggested that the best way to go about it would be for him to lead 330 million people spread across 4 different timezones, from mountainous and snowy areas to scorching desserts, people would probably put him on the list of people to never put in power. Because that's fucking insane. But that's how it ended up working. So then we've had to try to shoehorn in an entire bureaucracy of an institution behind that insane idea to somehow make this work for everyone. A huge, tangled mess of trying to be representative of the rural farmer with little education, the homeless in New York, and the actors in Hollywood all at the exact same time. People who will in all likelihood never cross paths, but will now all be forced in to the same marmelade jar. And then we just hope for the best?

I think it wouldnt take long for someone to instead suggest that maybe we should group people into more natural sections of people who live in the same area and generally need the same thing. And then make it work within that area.

I realize there are state laws and governments, which is good! I just think we need more of it. And more authority and independence to the local governments. Because we are putting entirely too much stock in one cake figure guy for anyone's good.

I also believe other, huge nations would benefit from the same treatment.