because that's what you people do.
Which people? Europeans? People from the 17th Century? People who disagree with you? Over and over you have jumped to conclusions based on knowing nothing significant about me. All you know is I disagree with you on 1 specific subject. In fact, I'm not sure you even know what it is you disagree with. You just assume things based on, what? Race? You have assumed that you can legitimately assume things about 'Europeans', while assuming that 'Europeans' must think about the Americans the way you do about Europeans. Straight forward projection of your own biases.
All the super-rich crooks were actually still living it up in England, their own property safely protected from democracy through the House of Lords.
Basic order of events: The constitution was written after the revolutionary war. Those crooks had lost their stake in the US by the time the constitution came along. There was no upper-class, not by previous standards. 'Upper class' started to become what we think of it now: i.e. straight up wealth.
The people who own the country ought to govern it.
[The Elections of England] were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place
James Madison explaining why the US government shouldn't be like England's.
one of the richest Americans
I'm sorry, are you serious? Do you actually believe that federal/state distinctions are determined by who issues currency? Does that mean that Germany is part of a "European nation" because it uses the Euro while the UK is not? The current identification of currency with nations is a novel economic phenomenon, and one that probably isn't even going to last.
What formally delineates state versus federal systems is another matter. The fact that you don't understand the mechanics of modern money systems isn't my problem.
So what? The people who wrote the Constitution also wore wigs and smelled bad. What does that have to do with anything? What exactly are you trying to get at here?
You can't give out pompous indignation about ignorance of history, with credibility, while not understanding the significance of a constitution being written "by land owners for land owners" while the common modern interpretation is that it is "by the people for the people".
I know to Europeans, the US is just one big homogeneous mix of people
...which you just assumed for some reason, then...
Having spent a lot of time in Europe, I find Europeans to be profoundly ignorant of politics, history, or culture, even their own
...that's some sort of meta-irony.
Oh crying out loud, not this shit again? No wonder your country is so messed up. You are confusing structure with whether your representatives are elected democratically or not.
You are confusing Democracy with Representation, illustrated by you not seeing that 'partial democracy' is a contradiction in terms. Democracy isn't voting for things or electing leaders. Democracy is implementing policies reflective of the population's requirements. Representation and voting for representatives are just pragmatic routines. I would argue that in a real democracy you vote for policies and the people in office should be instantly recalled when they deviate from agreed policy. Representatives should be interchangeable, and 'leaders' shouldn't even exist in a democratic government. Electing leaders is not democracy
Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.