The system of electoral democracy is incredibly potent, as it grants the masses the formal power to control the laws and the government.

This proposition warrants a discussion. One could just as well substitute the term "masses" with "elites." Besides, your argument leads in that direction. Electoral systems were invented by non-hereditary elites to contrast or replace hereditary elites. They were not in the beginning recognized as being "democratic." The process of voter enfranchisement- perceived as a sign of democracy- continues to this day. We owe the association of "democracy" and electoral systems to Woodrow Wilson, a gentleman who had his day seven score after the great constitutional revolutions.

Are electoral systems really "democratic" and all one needs to do is a little tinkering to set it straight? Do voters actually feel obliged to deliberate their choices or are they more taken by peripheral cues such as which candidate wears the snappier shoes?

The actual "crisis" does recall the legend of the foundation of the Roman Republic. The abuse and greed of the Roman elite drove the people to abandon the city in what could be considered figuratively a total massive strike, perhaps the first in history. Perhaps the elite perceived the action as a two-fold danger: that the Roman citizens would soon represent a military danger under another banner, and that Rome had lost it's military force. Following this legendary conflict- which may have some factual basis- the Roman Republic was created as a hybrid state with competing institutions that represented the instances of either the elite or the masses, with ample deliberative and veto power granted to the people, their institutions and elected officials (or tribal representatives as some authors put it).

This is hardly the place to detail the history of that experiment but it was the primary source for Machiavelli's theories of the state and political power. In his vision the defining characteristic of the elite is to oppress, whereas the defining characteristic of the commons is the desire to be left alone (i.e., not to be oppressed.) Since there is no way to eliminate elites and since they also can have a beneficial function, the elite must be checked by popular deliberative and/or judiciary assemblies. Machiavelli further notes that in his republic parties would not be allowed because parties cause strife and factionalism in the masses- but, above all, parties are subject to manipulation. It is in this optic that members of certain institutions ought to be chosen by lot or rotation rather than vote.

Voting does have a strong psychological valence, although one need not delude oneself in believing it has a tangible effect. After all, one is most often delegating power to the less worse of choices and the toss of a coin or the snappy shoe works just as well in decision-making. Ideally one feels voting contributes to a sense of civic community and a manner of resolving conflict through the peaceful means by the "tyranny of numbers." But if each citizen felt that he of she could be chosen by chance to deliberate on crucial issues for the common good for a determined period, would that not also foster a sense of community and citizenry within the state?

Not quite off the mark, back to Machiavelli. He maintained that the commons never resort to violence, and gives ample demonstration that the elites not only resort systematically to violence, but also to treachery and treason. Anything goes to oppress. His is a running commentary on what's going on today.