Ultimately any "blame" lays on humanity. Our greed, our desire for someone else to fix our problems, has led us to this point where our government is not representative and is completely corrupt. Voting now is a clown show, we needed people to step up and say "no, this is not the direction we want to go" long, long, long ago. But problems develop gradually and aren't noticed at first. The water has slowly come to a boil and most are still asleep not noticing.
Does God commanding us to obey give the one we are to obey the right to command us to do any and every thing? The conventional reply is that they're supposed to command only what God commands and if they command something evil, "We are to obey God rather than man."
Minor problem: That's not what the passage says. "Rulers are not a cause of terror for a good deed, but for bad conduct. So do you want not to be afraid of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it, for it is God’s servant to you for what is good. But if you do what is bad, be afraid" (Romans 13:3–4). That is a blanket statement about what rulers do; it's not a job description telling what they are supposed to do. Given the record of the powers that be, ordained of God, one wonders who supposes they are going to reward the good and punish the evil. Does God suppose it?
Let's look at ordination for a moment. There is a politician in our area, a black woman, a Christian active in the pro-life movement. She was conceived in rape. If her name has been written in the Lamb's book of life since before the foundation of the world, at the very least the rape and her conception were no surprise to God. He certainly did not do what was needed to prevent it, and we Calvinists would say that that rape was somehow ordained—God decided beforehand that he would work good through it (Rom 8:28)—though he is not to be blamed for it. And we would say that the rape was a sin.
Every authority I know of came to power through bloodshed of some sort, either directly or by inheritance. Lyndon Johnson is the clearest example in my lifetime, and Herod is the clearest example in the New Testament. Whether the bloodshed was justified or not is another question. We can be reasonably sure that the emperor Paul was talking about either killed off his rivals or inherited the job from someone who did. So "those [authorities] that exist are put in place by God" includes the idea that God puts those authorities in place by enabling them to kill off their rivals. Does God raise up / establish them? Yes. Do men establish them? Yes. Do they commit murder as part of the process? Yes. Is the God who establishes rulers good? Yes. Is the murder men commit in the process therefore justified? I think not (Rom 5:7–8; 9:19).
"True functional anarchy will never exist." Sure it will, depending on your definition of anarchy. Anarchy exists by definition whenever people consciously or unconsciously obey Matthew 20:25 and Luke 22:26. God originally designed Israel to be an anarchy: "There was no king in Israel," and the land "had rest [presumably from war, possibly from famine and pestilence]" for forty years three times (Jdg 3:11; 5:31; 8:28) and eighty years once (Jdg 3:30), a record unmatched during the monarchy (nor in our nation). God told Samuel that by asking for a king they were rejecting him (1 Sam 8:7), so clearly God had been willing to provide whatever they needed to make the anarchy work (1 Cor 10:13).
The Israelites thought the problem was their anarchy, not their idolatry, so they decided to fix it in 1 Samuel 8 (see Deut 17). God worked a bunch of miracles to show that Saul was his choice. Did he suppose that Saul was going to read the law every day and administer righteousness, fulfilling the description in Deuteronomy? Or was he giving Israel over to the desires of their hearts (Rom 1:24)? They insisted that they wanted to sin by becoming slaves (1 Sam 8:17, 19) to men, not to God (1 Cor 7:21–23).
So I contend that God's command to be subject to the authorities says nothing about the moral content of their commands. "We have to obey God rather than men." How do we know when that's what we're doing? Read Romans 13:8–10. Once they command us to murder, steal, defraud, or slander our neighbors, they have overstepped their bounds, and we do not have to obey.
Consider the logical end of your position: God has established two classes of people, the ruler and the ruled, the masters and the slaves. The former can take what he deems expedient from those who cannot defend themselves against him and do as he sees fit with it, and the ruled slaves cannot even speak against his actions without speaking against what God has ordained (Acts 23:5; Rom 13:2). I don't need to list all the commands to defend the poor and defenseless that go out the window with that view.
Legitimate authority is established by just, peaceful, voluntary means. It respects life, property, trust, and reputation. The state is the antithesis of all that.
You wrote: “Perhaps it is because of the people who are voted in, which by extension, lays the fault on the voters themselves.” As a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, you are right, and the Bible makes that clear in 1st Samuel 8.
The bottom line is if the Bible is true, which I claim, then doing things, such as asking for a government, that the Bible makes clear is a rejection of the Lord, then the blame lies with the voter as they are asking for a government.
But we can’t discuss that, especially in the institutional church, as it is far more fun to complain about the state then it is to trust in the Lord.
Ultimately any "blame" lays on humanity. Our greed, our desire for someone else to fix our problems, has led us to this point where our government is not representative and is completely corrupt. Voting now is a clown show, we needed people to step up and say "no, this is not the direction we want to go" long, long, long ago. But problems develop gradually and aren't noticed at first. The water has slowly come to a boil and most are still asleep not noticing.
Does God commanding us to obey give the one we are to obey the right to command us to do any and every thing? The conventional reply is that they're supposed to command only what God commands and if they command something evil, "We are to obey God rather than man."
Minor problem: That's not what the passage says. "Rulers are not a cause of terror for a good deed, but for bad conduct. So do you want not to be afraid of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it, for it is God’s servant to you for what is good. But if you do what is bad, be afraid" (Romans 13:3–4). That is a blanket statement about what rulers do; it's not a job description telling what they are supposed to do. Given the record of the powers that be, ordained of God, one wonders who supposes they are going to reward the good and punish the evil. Does God suppose it?
Let's look at ordination for a moment. There is a politician in our area, a black woman, a Christian active in the pro-life movement. She was conceived in rape. If her name has been written in the Lamb's book of life since before the foundation of the world, at the very least the rape and her conception were no surprise to God. He certainly did not do what was needed to prevent it, and we Calvinists would say that that rape was somehow ordained—God decided beforehand that he would work good through it (Rom 8:28)—though he is not to be blamed for it. And we would say that the rape was a sin.
Every authority I know of came to power through bloodshed of some sort, either directly or by inheritance. Lyndon Johnson is the clearest example in my lifetime, and Herod is the clearest example in the New Testament. Whether the bloodshed was justified or not is another question. We can be reasonably sure that the emperor Paul was talking about either killed off his rivals or inherited the job from someone who did. So "those [authorities] that exist are put in place by God" includes the idea that God puts those authorities in place by enabling them to kill off their rivals. Does God raise up / establish them? Yes. Do men establish them? Yes. Do they commit murder as part of the process? Yes. Is the God who establishes rulers good? Yes. Is the murder men commit in the process therefore justified? I think not (Rom 5:7–8; 9:19).
"True functional anarchy will never exist." Sure it will, depending on your definition of anarchy. Anarchy exists by definition whenever people consciously or unconsciously obey Matthew 20:25 and Luke 22:26. God originally designed Israel to be an anarchy: "There was no king in Israel," and the land "had rest [presumably from war, possibly from famine and pestilence]" for forty years three times (Jdg 3:11; 5:31; 8:28) and eighty years once (Jdg 3:30), a record unmatched during the monarchy (nor in our nation). God told Samuel that by asking for a king they were rejecting him (1 Sam 8:7), so clearly God had been willing to provide whatever they needed to make the anarchy work (1 Cor 10:13).
The Israelites thought the problem was their anarchy, not their idolatry, so they decided to fix it in 1 Samuel 8 (see Deut 17). God worked a bunch of miracles to show that Saul was his choice. Did he suppose that Saul was going to read the law every day and administer righteousness, fulfilling the description in Deuteronomy? Or was he giving Israel over to the desires of their hearts (Rom 1:24)? They insisted that they wanted to sin by becoming slaves (1 Sam 8:17, 19) to men, not to God (1 Cor 7:21–23).
So I contend that God's command to be subject to the authorities says nothing about the moral content of their commands. "We have to obey God rather than men." How do we know when that's what we're doing? Read Romans 13:8–10. Once they command us to murder, steal, defraud, or slander our neighbors, they have overstepped their bounds, and we do not have to obey.
Consider the logical end of your position: God has established two classes of people, the ruler and the ruled, the masters and the slaves. The former can take what he deems expedient from those who cannot defend themselves against him and do as he sees fit with it, and the ruled slaves cannot even speak against his actions without speaking against what God has ordained (Acts 23:5; Rom 13:2). I don't need to list all the commands to defend the poor and defenseless that go out the window with that view.
Legitimate authority is established by just, peaceful, voluntary means. It respects life, property, trust, and reputation. The state is the antithesis of all that.
You wrote: “Perhaps it is because of the people who are voted in, which by extension, lays the fault on the voters themselves.” As a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, you are right, and the Bible makes that clear in 1st Samuel 8.
The bottom line is if the Bible is true, which I claim, then doing things, such as asking for a government, that the Bible makes clear is a rejection of the Lord, then the blame lies with the voter as they are asking for a government.
But we can’t discuss that, especially in the institutional church, as it is far more fun to complain about the state then it is to trust in the Lord.