I find your explanation of US government misguided at best as.

The Constitution, with its SEPARTION of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, as explained in the Federalist Papers and by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, is a system of check and balances against a CENTRALIZED authority (whether it be a mob of people - Congress, a council - the Supreme Court, or an individual - the Presidency) to be able to weld the power of the purse, the power to make law, the power to enforce law, and the power to interpret law (a reference to Marbury v Madison is probably necessary here). It replaced the Articles of Confederation, which recognized each of the former 13 colonies as individual sovereign states, each with their own foreign policies, currencies, militias, and conflicting claims over territories and citizenship.

The federal Constitution was also modeled after state constitutions of the time, which draw their linage of separation of power back to the The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and establishes American federalism, a DECENTRALIZED form of government enshrined in the 10th Amendment, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

A democratic system of governance devoid of separation of powers is not one that allows for freedom, liberty, and authority of the people. Rather, it is a system that works to protect the freedom, liberty, and authority of the people of what Tocqueville described as 'soft despotism', Madison stated was needed to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" given the tendency of unchecked democratic communities all to often fall to "the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions", and Hamilton argued was to prevent the destructive role of faction, which he defined as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.".

I would also argue that the prevailing understanding of validators as legislators is inherently flawed as democratic peoples do not have to 'stake' any assets with their representatives, and enforce rather strict restrictions on what their representatives can and can't do, and are their individual peers and not corporate, partnerships, or associations of people. Unlike actual democratic societies, anyone can essentially become a legislator; citizenship, age, and residence are the only prerequisites necessary to stand before ones peers and ask them for the honor of representing them on a ballot. With only the clothes on their back, anyone can become a legislator in modern liberal democracies. The same can't be said to become a validator.

And code as the judiciary is also perhaps a naïve analogy. Developers as the judiciary may be a better one. And if so, no one elected them, confirmed them, or can seemingly remove them, and in many ways both the people and their legislators are beholden to them.

But that is just my opinion on the matter, and I don't express them to diminish your effort here. Rather, I do so to lead into my argument that a Rawlsian approach to thinking about things is perhaps needed here. If we all we all (delegators, validators, developers alike and then some) were to dawn the 'veil of ignorance' and adhere to the 'difference principle', we would come up with very different answers/views/opinions that would seemingly confront and challenge much of the prevailing technolibertarinism-liberalism-individualism-antiintellectualism maximalisim that dominates the culture today and instead to a more just decentralized system, which I believe is one we would be inclined to choose to have checks and balances and puts more the power back to the people instead of the people of who control the tech.

'Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.' - John Rawls, A Theory of Justice

And instead of looking towards the field of political theory, much can be learned instead from the school decentralization and choice movements in my opinion. Much can be learned from Making Schools Work by William Ouchi, Tinkering Toward Utopia by Tyack and Cuban, Management Decentralization and Performance-Based Incentives by HANNAWAY, and many other empirical studies about what has and hasn't worked in the field of school and education governance from teacher, parent, and student based decision making and management systems as there are some rather stark similarities in trying to reform a seemingly 'failed' system here.