Terry - So how do we get to this state that you call 'how things ought to be'?
And what would that state look like?
______
Not just a good question; the only question.
First, we need a reality check about the concept of THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS.
If "politics is the art of the possible", (A BIG IF) then, political structure would platform such a world.
But- the notion of "best" is a kind of asymptotic construct.
_________
The population of a set of constituents in confronting a UTOPIA would
produce conflict, disagreement, friction, and division simply due to the human condition (all politics is local). The more "local" the more specificity vis-a-vis the whole.
Here is why I think this is an insurmountable obstacle to Utopia.
The function of an ideal begins in the imagination.
Just as there is no final number (you can always +1) a better world can always be imagined. (Better for who? At what cost to others?)
"Consequently, the poor you always have with you."
In the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks chased the Communist ideal to its logical end which = murdering the opposition and gulags.
What else can you do with political opponents when you've got a revolution to run?
I personally don't believe any public Utopia is worth much more than a human life costs.
The enemy of the people isn't much more than POWER in the hands of people who don't include you in their own conceptual ideal.
Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, get along just dandy at the cost of reality.
They're willing to go to their death for such comfort.
Others are cheerful to see them pay that price.
As far as secular politics and democratic elections, I don't see them as "real" but only a sop to masses to give the illusion of participation and the consolation of "better luck next time."
I've lived long enough to know the next time is like the last time. It is repertory meets Kabuki.
That's earned cynicism on my part :)