"positions of power ought not be passed between competing members of different families. "
There's nothing wrong with two competing families and power constantly swinging between them, as long as the position is open to other people.
An issue that has little to do with political families. Address the cause not the symptom.So that would be..."a problem inherent in the system" then?
There's nothing stopping anyone from running for President (if they fit Constitutional requirements obviously). If they shirk their civic duty that automatically disqualifies them. If they'd rather be Governor than President, that's their prerogative. They disqualify themselves. Obama was relatively unknown before his presidential campaign.
I think there's some issues with the current system, but I wouldn't describe it as seriously flawed or broken. It's not my ideal system, not even close, but I am very "elitist" in my ideology. The current presidential system, from a liberal perspective, isn't that bad. Trump isn't qualified to be president and my reasoning isn't tautological. I am simply attacking your premise that Hillary and Bush were "Hilary and George W were nowhere near the most qualified American individuals ". I have my own criteria for judging candidates and I'm also not claiming that whoever becomes President is the most qualified person for it (that's a strawman you've created). I am claiming that Presidential candidates are "usually" very qualified especially because the ability to mobilize the population to win over your opponents is one of the skills needed to be a good President. There are other skills of course, which is why Trump, despite his victory, is not a good candidate. What people dub as "substance", his ability as a politician and administrator, are severely lacking in Trump. Hillary, despite all her faults, is an experienced statesman and has rallied a campaign that won over a very good chunk of the population. While I'm not a fan of the Kleptocratic DNC process that cut Sanders out of having a "fair shot", it is evidence to Hillary's influence and power, which is also something a President needs and benefits from. Your influence and ability to mobilize other politicians is an important skill. How else will you get legislation through otherwise?You are shifting your argument a bit here but it still isn't a very compelling one. Essentially you are saying that the current system is already the best at determining the best and most qualified candidate simply because they are the ones chosen by the current system. Your reasoning is very tautological. Hilary and Trump were the best candidates by your logic simply because they won.
The only thing stopping Elizabeth Warren from running is herself. If she can mobilize the political and populist capital to get herself elected, I'd be all for it. Obama is also a very moral and fair politician like Elizabeth Warren, but he has shown to have the charisma and flexibility to successfully run the country and unite his party as well. If Warren can do the same she will find herself elected. And have you watched the last election? The Clinton name was just as much of a drawback as it was a boon, something Trump's fanatically loyal fanbase (and Russian intelligence) exploited to the fullest.And I never said every candidate comes from a political family ffs, but people that come from political dynasties have massive inherent advantages over newcomers that are often used to bully better candidates out of the race. Sometimes the newcomer can come onto the scene in such a way that they can't be denied like Obama. But other times, better candidates like Elizabeth Warren never get a chance because of the power behind the worse candidate (hilary)