I wonder to what extent the checks and balances made it easier to elect Trump, even though they were designed to prevent any one person getting too much power. I can imagine a cohort who are so anti government they would vote for anyone making that claim - and to be fair Obama and many others have done well on the "I am change" ticket. For others the idea of a businessman in charge held attraction so that is a second group. But I suspect the knowlege he would be under near constant observation together with the belief the checks and balances would stop any really outragious actions make him seems a much less risky bet than the utterances alone would suggest. For example the Bill Clinton saga might temper any inclination to grab women.