Then the Founders were elitists. They did not open any aspect of government, except the selection of members of the House and the Electoral College to a direct vote of the people, and put in all manner of checks and balances not merely to restrain the power of the state, but to restrain the power of popular enthusiasms.
"A republic, if you can keep it," was Franklin's reply when asked what form of government the Constitutional Convention had given the nation.
Quite frankly, I think the direct election of Senators was a mistake, abolishing the Electoral College would be a greater mistake, and that the one-man-one-vote decision that destroyed the system of government in states which had followed the wisdom of the Founders in having an upper house based on geography rather than population was a hideous blow to our polity, ranking with Dred Scott and Roe as one of the most abusive cases of judicial overreach in the nation's history.
Seeing that one of my favorites among the Founders was John Randolph of Roanoke, you may be onto something in holding that I'm an elitist, though I'm not happy with the crew currently in charge.
Then you must have a big problem with ballot initiatives that many states have, after all only elitist politicians elected solely by property owners, excluding women and other minorities as the Founders set it up should make these decisions right? Yes these were very great and intelligent men however they were not perfect and the political system has modified itself slightly over the years.
I mean referendum in the sense of having a national discussion without the browbeating and intimidation tactics that are normally employed by those on the pro side. I'm for openly discussing the advantages and disadvantages of more or less immigration so that the public becomes well informed, and asking political candidates where they stand prior to a their election.
Something that has such a direct effect on the lives of all US citizens should be more subject to their sanction than it currently is.