Yeah, and when you get down to it, the fuedal nature of the Seven Kingdoms (as discussed by Cersei & Joffrey in Season 1) actually works better at that than our current system, in some ways. The system of vassalage and fealty was not intended as the pyramid scheme it appears and sometimes plays out as, but rather another dissemination of power, built on recognition of the rights of the lower groups. It was not formed by distributing power among underlings, but by building alliances with peers based on mutual respect of each others' rights, backed by military power. Though the process is largely glossed over, we see that the better kings govern largely though consensus. It comes across sometimes as caving to peer pressure, but in reality, it demonstrates that his bannermen could, in fact, take their troops and go home, as Greatjon threatens in the beginning. Had Robb not kept the respect of his bannermen, his threat to destroy the Umbers in retaliation would have been empty. His (and Grey Wind's) response go a long way to keeping that respect.

That merit existed in the fuedal system too. Time is an important factor in military operations. Time to practice weapons and the resources to obtain them were even more precious in such eras and places than they are today. THAT was the real threat of the advent of point-and-shoot weapons like the crossbow, and later the firearm, not mere aristocratic contempt. The most important skill in the lands and time periods where fuedal systems arose was military prowess, to keep and hold what you had against the vikings or goths or moors (or the ironborn, or Andals or slavers or outlaws, in Westeros), and the aristocracy could afford to spend time practicing with the sword & lance, and they could afford to feed, clothe and house men with no duties other than fighting and standing guard and honing combat skills. Everyone else was too busy with immediate necessities to train at arms. They lacked the spare time (and the energy, as their occupations were far more physically demanding than the average job in a service economy) to keep up with the aristocratics & their minions in combat prowess. While it might be nice to think of intelligent or wise or learned men holding positions of authority, they tended to get their asses kicked by pure fighters (see, for instance, the fate of the council Daenerys leaves in charge of Astapor in the books). For whatever reason, the ability to command the respect & support of the winning army WAS the most meritorious skill, so in a manner of speaking, it IS a merit-based society.

Even a lot of the selfish or otherwise bad rulers and leaders are kept in check by the need to appease large numbers of followers, rather than cite their constitutional authority to command a professional army & police force. Tywin Lannister explains this to Jaime in the deer-dressing scene, which explains why he goes to war to defend the least-beloved member of his family, and throughout the book series is shown to be more merciful in some ways than good guys like Robb or Stannis, if purely for self-serving reasons. It boils down to the dispersal of military power through multiple levels of the aristocracy, meaning a ruler needs them to get anything done.

At the end, the fate of the common people boils down to how responsible the nobles are going to be in the discharge of their duties as overlords. Just as it does in an elected government.

The forerunner to the US Constitution in English Common Law was the Magna Carta which was the work of a bunch of aristocrats standing up for their rights against a monarch, and the latter day political theorists simply expanded upon that earler concession.

From the point of view of someone on the bottom, I prefer the theoretical equality of stature before the law and opportunity the contemporary system affords me. Objectively, and in the abstract, I see no real advantage in obtaining the best form of government by polling the mob, instead of raising leaders from childhood.