That idea arose as an important principle to counteract the social evolutionary tendency, noted in my book, The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution , which is that humankind gets divided by the struggle for power--into two groups, the "history-makers" and those who are compelled to live in a world shaped by others.
But the problem is worse than that, worse than the mere issue of inequality of power. It would be bad enough if ANY random few were given disproportionate say over the common fate. But the choice of who gets to speak can be worse than random.
But because it is the struggle for power that determines who gets to "speak" while others are forced to "listen," and because success in the struggle to amass power is correlated with certain characteristics, which in some cases can be among humanities least attractive, it is a recurrent tragedy of civilization that it is especially THESE people who determined far more than others how civilized societies develop.
The weakness in the democratic set up our Founders gave us is that differences in power outside the ballot box can lead to the few being able to manipulate the consent of the many. That consent is worth no more than the quality of the knowledge and the soundness of the judgment of the multitudes that make up the governed.
Our economic system, of course, generates some huge inequalities of economic power. We Americans take that as just, overall, to the extent that it is determined by genuine and fair economic competition. It's not, for the most part, an issue so long as that inequality does not bleed out into the political system.
Thus can the few subvert the intentions of the Founders, and mount the saddle to ride the mass of mankind.
Which would be bad enough, but it this empowering of the few is still more destructive because of the particular nature of those who emerge from the struggle for power in a position to take the reins.
[To be continued....]