BUT, they weren't meant to be. That is the point. The Founding Fathers didn't want us voting for Senators or the President. They knew that a democracy was open for oppression. They wanted the country to operate according to the Rule of Law, and not the Rule of Man.
This is, in fact, bullshit. Democracy is no more "open for oppression" than any other form of government. Look at the historical governments that were most oppressive of minorities. Is Nazi Germany not near, or perhaps at, the top of the list? How about Saudi Arabia and its treatment of women, gay people, and non-Muslims? Was Nazi Germany a democracy? Is Saudi Arabia a democracy? No and no.
Government in general, not democracy in particular, has a potential to violate the rights of people. Democracy, arguably, has less tendency to do so than any other form of government, BUT unfortunately not zero such tendency. Regardless of what form of government we have, we need checks and balances, we need an independent judiciary, and we need guarantees of individual rights -- no one seriously disputes this. But that has NOTHING to do with the question of democracy versus non-democracy. Nothing at all.
The reason why the Founding Fathers (or rather, SOME of them) distrusted democracy is completely different from what you suggest. A government of, by, and for the people is not likely to acquiesce in a system of privilege that benefits a small minority of rich people at the expense of everyone else. As the Founding Fathers were all rich men, they (or some of them) wished to preserve such a system of privilege. For that reason and no other, they crafted a system that restricted democracy.
We have since altered that system to allow for more democratic government. I completely disagree with you that this was a mistake.
This is bull shit from start to finish, such a left wing spin on what the Founding Fathers wanted. Ooooh they were evil rich men!
Blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............