There is no greater force than an idea whose time as come.

I never said anything about policies.

But stripping them of a voice screws them over. We all know what democrats think of rural communities in general.

 

You prefer feeding China to feeding Americans. By the way if big Democrats vote in favor of policies that favor the seven sisters not the small farmer.

 

Ok, here's the Reader's Digest response. No one claims the system is perfect; even the founders knew that - as you mentioned there were a lot of compromises. But the Founders were also smart enough to prove an amendment process to modify or add features they messed up.
They WISELY added roadblocks to control the tyranny of the majority. Populous states still have a large influence on the outcome - California has 20% of EV needed to win, for instance. Add in New York and you're almost a third of the way to victory. Seems like a pretty good "compromise". Big states have a lot of power, but NOT absolute power.

 

I work out in the hot sun and eat avacado toast.

 

What voice does a farmer have now if they live in a state that votes for the opposition?

 

Capitalism prefers that if its happening.

 

It's ludicrous when looked at through the lens of a 2021 America, sure, but not through the lens of the 1780s, when the Constitution was written. At that point in history, and for millennia before it, women and minorities were not seen as equals, slavery was seen as, if not necessarily good, but at least acceptable, and land was acquired via conquest and war. That's simply how things worked, and had you been the same age you are now, only lived at that time, you yourself would have only seen those things as the natural and ordered way of how stuff got done, too. A number of the founding fathers would have loved to have written a Constitution that banned slavery, but they knew if they insisted on that, it would never have passed. Heck, the practice was even considered as not just acceptable, but endorsed by the christian buybull during the time, and since that document has remained largely unchanged since, an argument could be made that it STILL endorses the practice.

These things were seen by them as being as normal as driving in internal combustion engine car is to you today, and who knows... I don't buy in to the whole man-made climate change thing, but what if it turns out I'm wrong, and 250 years from now our decedents look back upon those of us long dead people who today own and use them as you would have us look back on our founders for their attitudes towards race and gender?

You're just looking at that from a childish perspective. OMGee, blacks only are 3/5ths as good as whites, how horrible that was!!!

What you're paying zero attention to is that if slaves had counted as a full person, the southern slave states would have been counted as having much higher populations, meaning more seats in the House, and more EC votes. That would have altered the political landscape so profoundly in favor of things like keeping slavery legal, expanding it into expansion States and possibly further into the free states of the North, There is no way Abraham Lincoln would have seen an EC victory had the southern States had those Elector counts that would have been the case had slaves been counted as whole persons, and the Civil War may have never happened, meaning slavery would likely have survived for decades longer than it did, perhaps (though I doubt it) up through and including modern times.

So, it may be best to analyze things a little more than just skin deep, for sometimes all is not as a casual glance may make them appear. So much for minorities, who couldn't vote and there were no parties, so what 'minority' are you talking about?

 

12 hour days in the hot sun??...that is a storybook written long ago

todays farmers do not even get dirty

they drive equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars

with air-conditioning and GPS systems and a self driving mode

they certainly are not going to pay someone to drive their toys they use for farming

I live surrounded by corn and soybean fields

about 6 days total work per year is all it takes to farm hundreds of acres of grain

2 or 3 days to plant in the spring. an airplane or helicopter sprays in july and 2 or 3 days to harvest it

during harvesting the only hired help is the grain truck drivers

on my small farm is alfalfa hay...it takes 5 times the work of the big grain fields

alfalfa needs to be cut, raked, and then bailed 3 or 4 times a year

grain farming is planted, sprayed and cut once a year

the dirt farmers stopped hiring people years ago

today's farmers work a few weeks in the spring and a few weeks in the fall

a kid that lives down the road is a farmers son ..at 17 he drives a pickup truck worth about $75K

modern farming consists of equipment and chemicals and subsidies

the office workers do much more work than a farmer

 

So tyranny? I don't think that's a good idea this is a republic not a democratic dictatorship. You want that moved to Venezuela they already have what you want should be a paradise for you.

 

Sorry, your temper tantrum won't change the Constitution and you aren't going to find any states other than New York and California idiotic enough to vote for such idiocy.
Guess you will just have to either move to another country that prefers mod rule or just sit in the US and pout about it. lol

 

Which we don't live in. This is a Republic.
You should learn the difference

In a democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.

In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION: A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT
https://constitutioncenter.org/lear...he-constitution-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it
You should get better educated on the Constitution before you decide what it should be.

 

Nope, democracy.

 

Are there EC's for elections for congress?

 

You'll need to provide evidence of cheating.

Otherwise, your comment is dismissed.

 

If your asking a question like that, you should move on as this thread is way WAY above your head.

 

Answer please.

 

And trying to conflate the EC with having anything to do with us being a republic shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
The EC has nothing to do with the laws that make it to our books.

There is nothing that says a republic cant democratically elect their president.
There are documents that state we cannot democratically select our laws. Big difference.

 

Each State has the same number of electors as it does Members in its Congressional delegation: one for each Member in the House of Representatives plus two Senators. Each states Senators and Congressional members are selected by their electorate.

During the general election your vote helps determine your State’s electors. When you vote for a Presidential candidate, you aren’t actually voting for President. You are telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to appoint their electors. The winning candidate’s State political party selects the individuals who will be electors.

The fact you asked a question like
Are there EC's for elections for congress?
Is quite telling

 

I was not talking about that; I was talking about the concept of one man/one vote. That is not how our system works, and if it was, it would be an absolute disaster. As it is, we've been on the verge of disaster for years, and it's getting worse. The old "fable" about democracies lasting only until the people figure out they can vote themselves money from the treasury, which is a line long since passed. I expect, in time, the predicted consequences will come to pass. How much time? I dunno, do you?

 

You apparently know very little about civics.

True, we currently have an electoral college, but the EC has nothing to do with indirect, or direct, democracy.

The EC means we have an indirect method of electing the president, but the term 'indirect democracy, or rather, 'representative democracy' does not refer to how the president is elected, it refers to how laws are created.

A representative democracy, or rather ,'indirect democracy' is one where laws are created by representatives who are elected.

A direct democracy is one where laws are voted for by direct vote.

The vast majority of western democracies, like ours, are indirect, or rather, representative democracies, but, unlike ours, they vote for the president with the most votes. We call it the 'popular vote' but in the other countries they do not call it that, they just call it the vote. Why? Because 'popular vote' is redundant. Only in our country is there as distinction made, because of the EC. We are the only country that has it, of all the representative democracies (afaik).

voting for president with the most votes doesn't alter our constitutional republic, it doesn't alter our representative democracy. Of course, it would require an Constitutional amendment, which the Constitution allows for.

The EC was created before there were parties. the 13 state were roughly the same size, wich is to say, there was substantially less disparity than there is now, and yes, some states had more urban cities, but the more rural states wanted a stronger voice in order to ratify the constitution, so the EC system allowed for it. However, it was NEVER intentionally designed to:

1. Penalize a state like California with 39,000,000 people just so, say, Montana could have a stronger voice.
2. Allow a president to be elected with less votes than the opposition, though it was understood it was possible.
3. Cater to parties, where the members of one party's vote weighed less than another ( which is the case, now).

The fact that the sate of the union when the EC was created was that there was vastly less disparity among states as there is now. Given that there is greater disparity now, the EC constrains the nation such that a democrats vote weighs substantially less than a republican's vote, which was NEVER the intended design. This evolution requires an overhaul of the system. ANd that is a fair and reasonable, not to mention, JUST, proposition.

You can climb down off your high horse now, which you never properly mounted in the first place.

 

I never made that claim. The only one conflating is you.
NEXT

Again, I never made those claims.
What else ya got

 

You can wine and cry and stamp your little feet but the EC is here to stay.

Just because you think something does not mean the world has to conform with your opinion that is not the way things work.

 

So its ok for congressmen to elected by direct democracy but not the POTUS. Got it.

 

Yep, the POTUS should not represent the will of the people.