Naio posted:Stanky posted:Naio posted:Stanky posted:Naio posted:Stanky posted:It might surprise everyone here, but the founders didn't want a pure democracy; they established a republic based on respect for individual rights. The founders knew from history that democracies usually perished because the majority will eventually rob and tyrannize the minority which will cause the minority to revolt. Luckily, most rebellions in our country happen at the ballot box, but some would "reform" our voting laws such that the only recourse next time might be an armed revolt.
https://www.ranker.com/list/fo...otes/melissa-sartore
Currently, the republican party is "reforming" voting laws. But what about when the minority( ie the the powers that be) rob, divide, and tyrannize the rest of us?
I think that it is Dems who want the Electoral College to be scrapped. Presently rural flyover states have a little say (Really not that much!) in electing presidents that they wouldn't have if the popular vote were used. The folks who crafted the Constitution didn't want low population farm states to feel they were subservient to states with large cities.
Not true. But I think you know this already.
You might try reading history over listening to the voices in your head:
Based on the wikipedia link, where do you get this from?: The folks who crafted the Constitution didn't want low population farm states to feel they were subservient to states with large cities.
" Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South."
There's an elephant in the room...
Only picking out what you wanted to see are you. Yes some delegates wanted direct election of the president, but the compromise vote was the electoral college:
"The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.[19] Delegates from states with smaller populations or limited land area such as Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland generally favored the Electoral College with some consideration for states.[20]"
James Madison alluded to the fact that the constitutional compromises were created to allay the fears of the people so factions would not form:
https://billofrightsinstitute....ralist-papers-no-10/
"
Federalist Papers: No. 10 – Full Text
The Union as a Sa***uard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
To the People of the State of New York:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
At the time of the constitutional convention, history shows that there was a good bit of arguing over the structure of the government:
https://www.history.com/news/h...fects-politics-today
"The principle of protecting small states through equal representation in the Senate carries over into the electoral college, which elects the president, since the number of electoral votes designated to each state is based on a state’s combined number of representatives in the House and Senate."