They design a federal government that was purposely hamstrung by the states. It was poorly funded, had no standing military, only briefly had a federal bank, and had very limited purview of authority that didn't fall down to the state level.
If we want to remove bureaucracy while also rolling back many of the federal powers created over the last century or so I'd be all for it.
Removing one without the other either seems pointless (bureaucracy without authority) or risky (authority without bureaucracy) in my opinion.
That makes it more, not less, important for that expansive government to be highly responsive to elections.
For what reasons should the government be expected to shift dramatically every election?
Personally my argument would be that the government's authority should be limited enough that it doesn't have to change very much every election.
It’s also incorrect to assume that the bureaucracy averages out to the same place as the public. Public support for increasing immigration, for example, peaked at 35%. It’s never been popular. But we have been getting more of it for decades: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi...