I think everyone who votes is despicable

Democracy or Republic, it does not matter. The real issue is the System of LAW, and that people consent to this system. The system of Law that this country was founded upon was Common Law, also know as English Law.

"For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies"
Declaration of Independence

The system of Law we have now is not Law, it is a contract, Statutes. It is the same as credit card, the US Code being the "Terms of Agreement". If you consent to be a US Citizen, then you are consenting to the Contract and to abide in the "Terms of Agreement", the Codes. As such, when you go into a Court of "Law", you are in a Courty of Equity where they practice Law of Equity, Contracts. And thus if you are a Juror you will be instructed that, "you are not here to decide upon the Law but only upon the facts of the case". And the reason is because the Law is not Law but it is instead a Contract, and jurors do not have the ability to decide upon the contract because that would be equilent to altering the contract. A judge may decide that the Contract itself violates the Law, and that is what the Supreme Court does. But virtually anything can be put into contracts, save murder, rape and such, and it is lawful. One can even contract oneself into slavery if it is done voluntarily. And the Contract, the Statutes/Codes, are available to everyone so no one can claim that they were deceived into the contract. The judge knows well that all that is needed to understand is available to the person that seeks it. The Judge also knows that those who are lazy, slothful, in seeking knowledge WILL be under tribute.

But in the Court of Common Law things are far different. The Jury is instructed that they are there not only to decide upon the facts of the Case, but also to decide upon the Law. In fact, the Jury of 12 can actually create Law, instead of the Judges and Congress. And since the Jury can decide upon the Law, it does not matter what laws congress passes. The Defendent can argue openly that the LAW is unjust, and if only ONE juror agrees then that Law that Congress legislated is then null. In the Court of Common Law, "Nothing that we propose can pass into law without your consent. Be yourself, O Americans, the authors of those laws on which your happiness depends." (Samuel Adams, on August 1, 1770)

Under the Original Constitution the people WERE the Lawmakers, Congress only proposed Laws to the people, if even that. But the Constitution has been Amended, and a different Citizenship created. And THOSE new citizens are not under the Organic Constitution. Instead they are a under the AMENDMENT that Created this new Citizen. And this new Citizenship is VOLUNTARY even unto today. In the NEW system people chose a REPRESENTATIVE who is not bound in any way to represent them. And per the Amendment that created this new citizenship, Congress has the Athority to Legislate FOR the people and the US Citizen is BOUND to that legislation. And there is nothing in the NEW COVENANT about Natural Rights or a Bill of Rights. And whether intent of the Amendment is being violated is of no relevence because the people continue to CONSENT to US Citizenship even as it is currently being interpretted. It is the CONSENT that gives it validity.

People continue to VOTE and elect representative that represent no one, and they continue to maintain US Citizenship. THIS is consent, and THAT gives it validity.