Noted. Good for you. If you're going to twist the meaning of aristocracy away from what it has historically been, that's all on you. Republics != Aristocracies. Just because some people have authority delegated to them, the essence of representative democracy, it does not make them Aristocrats. It makes the person nominated or elected a civil servant, a social position in the United States that actually renders you vulnerable a position to have to put up with more abuse than would normally be tolerated in everyday life. By the way you're defining it, even a nuclear family is an Aristocracy, an assertion most reasonable people would laugh at, and no number of Wikipedia links will change that.

Furthermore, you missed the nuance of the Greek way of life vs. the reality of the American System. Which is that anyone can run and hold office. You have to campaign well, but there is no privileged class you must be a member of. You need only be the bearer of the right ideas at the right time.

That now, it may be woefully out of reach for those who have to hold down a full time job, and is really only attainable once you've gotten yourself to the point you've got a decent social and support network, still doesn't make the American System an Aristocracy. Just a pain to get ahead in, and much more likely to be participated in by those who aspire to politics.

The other "tangents" were refutations of your assertion that various aspects of the architecture of the early American government were specifically attempts to create an aristocratic class. They most certainly were not and even a cursory reading of the Federalist papers demonstrates that while there were some Founders who were favorable toward the idea there were just as many against it. Following any of the historical literature of the time will demonstrate that while there was an appreciation for the well to do, there was just as much for those of more humble origin that found their own way into the political limelight.

You seem to have your mind made up, so that's cool. You do you. However, if you're looking to get taken seriously by anyone who doesn't already agree with you, you may want to consider getting a better appreciation for the historical context of the time in question, and open yourself to the fact that societies evolve over time. Your protests that the Founders were Aristocrats from your privileged position here and now would be laughed at as grim humor or insanity in their time. They were traitors. Treasonous currs and usurpers to the loyalust. They were heroes, patriots, and paragons to the oppressed, and liberty starved of the time. The Dream and ambitious ideal they chased, of a Country of the Free, of, by, and for the People it served at the consent of; bound explicitly from assuming a place as Supreme Arbiter or Granter of Freedoms through the Constitutional foundation laid out in simple language, and left open ended for revision by those that came after. To them, better men and women than any of them could ever hope to be, and underpinned by their single greatest gesture against the established powers of the time: namely their Declaration that started it all.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So if you're set in your ways, if you truly believe what they built is worthy of ridicule, scorn, and abandonment, know that you are walking in the very shoes they did all those years ago, and take care that you not repeat their mistakes, and that you put at least as much effort, forethought, and sacrifice into that which you're set on hewing from the corpulent mass of the society you seem to have come to despise.

On the other hand, if you're just looking to change things for the better, you're in good company; the trick is to beat the establishments it's own game.