>>24
That's why we are a democratic republic; we combine the ideals of both. The whim of the people drives us forward, as long as you can get enough to believe, while the restraint of the system keeps us from going too far. I can not think of many pre-modern systems that actually designed so many inherent fail-safes and stabilizers. And its centerpiece was designed to leave unfettered the undeniable freedom individuals possess.
As to your question, the existence of these unelected is that they remain that way by permission. If
that is what enough citizens disliked, then the people of this country are free to change that, but only if you can get enough people/States to dislike it. The change would only be as violent as the maniacs because the system is inherently designed thus that it may be changed without a drop of blood; not easily, for that is dangerous, but still that it can be changed.
I do take offense at your "Ayatollah" choice of word. Ayatollah are never elected to anything by anyone specific: the title is awarded by clerical peers to one who is considered a scholar-expert of Islamic tradition and is not awarded without the person already being well-sought in the community regarding matters of Islamic interpretation and tradition. Becoming an Ayatollah is very much, in this way, more of a demagogue's path. To those people, their tradition is
that important and should not be mistaken as an argument against them.
Your related position regarding how their government is "fixed" I actually interpret as a reflection of a different problem for US: limited candidate pools, intentionally or otherwise. However, as is also demonstrated, no one in our system is not permitted to improve their political status if they are willing to do honest (please, honest!) work and remain receptive to their constituency and convictions.