[AnimalMuppet]

> Additionally, I'm a tad confused about this concept of Democracy (warning, not really confused, just arguing): If the president is elected in a presidential election and represents the majority of the people, why then do we elect a separate set (branch, as they call it), of individuals at a more granular level that could very well "fight" the already-elected president?

You're confused. That's not a bug, it's a feature. The whole political philosophy of the US is that no one person gets power that somebody else can't block.

> Could the entire problem not be solved by removing the entire "checks-and-balances" concept, and simply hold presidents accountable for their actions (or lack thereof when it comes to promises)?

The thing you see as a problem could be solved that way, yes. But imagine that the next president is Trump rather than Sanders. Still think it's a good idea?

The public makes bad decisions at the ballot box sometimes. No matter which way you lean politically, you're sure to be able to find examples in the last 20 years. Having Congress able to block some of their most stupid ideas is genius, rather than a flaw.