I did not especially mean racially homogeneous (although it's a start) but more in terms of homogeneous expectation of outcome, ideology and national destiny. The division we see in the US today is less of one of race at this point, but of these differing ideologies and expectations. People seem to vote based on how they expect things to be. This is why the "free" healthcare and "erasing" college debt platform is so popular. It's completely infeasible, but that doesnt matter to the average voter. There is a large portion of people who believe that they can vote to just remove any obstacle or "injustice" that they perceive, and in doing so cast their vote for the most incidious creature that smiles on the tv and says, "if you vote for me, I'll make everything free and safe." Humanists vs realists is one of the oldest ideological splits in peak civilization, a good reference being the humanist woman who opened the gates of Rome to Alaric's plunderers. This circumstance only seems to come around when a civilization has reached a point where several generations have passed without hardship and luxury is common. >natural tension that exists between those who have more than others This is a hard thing to combat, but under no system will you have all people having the materialistic equality unless everybody has nothing, or very little. There will always be an upper class and lower class, the good thing being that the population of the lower class always outweighs that of the upperclass. >Every single issue should be held to vote by "land owning men of good character" who hold no debt As far as this statement goes, I believe it would be almost impossible to implement in today's society. The men that match this criteria are mostly college graduates who have never turned a wrench. The division we see now would be close to the same. Fancy well off humanists vs poor realists. I think you'll find that the middle class doesnt own much of any land, it all belongs to the banks. Those who own land in this country are poor rural folk who inherited their land and the upper class who could afford to buy land outright without a bank loan. >So perhaps from among the landowners they select even more elitist groups corresponding with higher and higher economic status There would have to be some sort of gauge. Obviously restricting voting due specifically to economic status would just end with an oligarchy, "Good character" is something to work with, although the issue with this is who would define it? This question is why I do think civilization is past the point of no return. There is no longer anybody to trust. I think the articles of confederation and the anti federalists were correct in their convictions that a decentralized system and a focus on community level politics are the way towards protecting the liberties of free men. The power of many is great and the voice of a dozen can be drowned out by the voice of a million but a dozen voices out of a hundred can still be heard. >those who serve as representatives are thrown into a kind of game where they are incentivized to patronize the values of as many people as possible The issue which arises here is it is enough that these representatives are fairly attractive and say things that a majority of their voters want to hear. Nobody of good character, land owning and working has time to keep tabs over what Rep. Jim Sheckleswest is doing when he has a massive team of lawyers writing 20,000 page bills every day to hide his agenda in, but they do have time to quickly skim over "Proposed 2% tax on beer for county road maintenance, expires May 2024." The good thing with this system is that if tax on beer becomes outrageous, the county can just vote to end the tax, and if the roads become to bad, they can vote to raise it. >Given what I said above, who is in charge of regulating this, who decides who gets to own and operate what? I dont have a good answer for this and like you said I dont know that there is a solution either. Everything that has been discussed would have to be watched over, but who is there to trust? Maybe the news should just be regulated down to hobbyists with a printing press in their shed talking about the latest rumors and issues. All I know is that mega media corporations with slinky agendas and foreign investment should not be influencing voters at all.