Your proposal is just an idealistic version of early US.

Thanks, I guess :)

You claim that corruption is fundamentally impossible, but assume that magically “the monarchs aren’t allowed to own property” without regard to enforcement.

I make no such claim, and I don’t make assumptions regarding enforcement either. Constitutional enforcement is discussed in quite some detail.

You claim to have an alternative to democracy but still propose majority voting on replacing rulers and constitutions.

There is majority voting on deposal of rulers, to be specific. Their replacement isn’t voted on by a majority of the population.

Constitutional changes are voted on through majority, but first require a majority of the monarchs to be on board.

Both these limitations are intentionally designed to mitigate manipulation of the population.

You simply assume that monarchs will keep each other in check and not devolve into the conspiring, warmongering tyrants that history is full of.

There is quite some detail about the enforcement mechanisms. The idea is very much not to assume, but to persuade the monarchs to act in a benevolent manner, by enticement through both the carrot (wealth for as long as they rule), but also the stick (deposal if the majority doesn’t vote in favour of their actions, with a threat of assassination if they refuse to be deposed).

Power can always be abused to get more power and go against all your original ideals. The only way to definitely prevent corruption is to ensure power is never concentrated in the hands of few.

Ah. So it wasn’t me that claimed that corruption is fundamentally impossible, it’s you that claim to have the definitive answer.

For what it’s worth, I agree power shouldn’t be concentrated in the few. Which is why I split power across districts, and between citizens and monarchs, and why the group of monarchs for each district cannot be too small either. It’s all there if you could try to be a little less dismissive.