What's wrong with elections based off of the Popular Vote?

Still don’t want to address what I said I see. Ok.

 

The country is its citizens. Not geography, lol.

 

America is a union of 50 individual states. The Constitution was written after negotiations over concerns of a "general government" obtaining too much power over the states. The results of this is the bicameral congress and the electoral college. If you don't like it, change the Constitution.

 

I plan to

 

Andrew Jackson promoted democracy with the creation of the Democratic party in 1828. His proposal was to allow all free men to vote. Democracy was created by the ancients, not Karl Marx. And a popular vote for president is still a republic.

There’s one president Marx was vocal about his support for, guess who that was: Abraham Lincoln.

The primary influence of Marxist philosophy in the last 120 years was work and labor rights.

Empires are unstable, and always collapse as they spread and neglect the citizenry within. Consider Athens and Rome, by the time of their collapse they had become plutocratic and totalitarian.

There was a lot of debate on how to choose the president; some wanted a popular vote, others wanted congress to vote, some states requested more representation. The Electoral College was the compromise nobody was happy with. Some call that a success.

Indeed.

 

Did I say Marx created democracy?? No, I did not.

Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto?? Marx says that the communists must win the battle of democracy.

Democracy is a transitional form of government. Unstable and always devolves into anarchy.

As for "empire" that isn't even a form of government. Is "imperialism" a form of government??

As for the EC, I'm generally supportive of anything that puts government under lock and key, and makes it as difficult as possible for "the people" to unleash it's power upon their fellow citizens.

As was well known at the time of our founding, governments are prone to be easily corrupted and become "vast robberies" - and worse.

It is why our Founders wisely gave us a republic.

 

Yeah, it's me with the "losing argument".

Meanwhile, you and your state are going to go form a new country.

Someone better call the white coats.

 

Those od us in the "flyover states" refuse to be ruled by the coasts. We have little in common.

 

The description of democracy as a Marxist mind trick was what I found objection with. Since a popular election for president was preferred by some the writers of the Constitution, it is not an idea with no merit even in debating with antiquity. The conflation of direct democracy government and the popular election for executive office is fallacious. Yet this is consistent with your argument, you’re arguing against something that is a misrepresentation of the issue.

Regarding instability, a four year term for a national leader could be considered unstable. Nations considered the most democratic are Norway, Iceland and Sweden, not exactly states in perpetual anarchy.

The EC does nothing to protect against instability or the population electing a fool. Since electors are partisan, and often unelected, this is a clear avenue for corruption. Corruption doesn’t come from people voting, it comes from unchallenged political positions.

 

Well, you are no farmer. You don't have the common sense to read that correctly. Try again. Maybe the second time will be the charm.

There is unfair representation in the EC and a Trump fan thinks it is funny. The rest of Trump's supporters ignored the unpleasant fact. That says it all right there.

 

Read the post again.

 

When you compared a farmer in Montana to Doctors and Teachers in California in such a way that denigrates the farmer, I took offense. I hit back with a joke. You are free to do with it as you please. But as far as I am concerned, that farmer has more value to the US than either the doctor or the teacher.

 

It was to create a buffer between the populace and election of a president, to give smaller states power.

 

Majority popular vote is tyranny of the majority which our founders and framers knew was just as bad as tyranny of a despot. You guys get control as a majority and laws will be passed that says I can't own a car or read magazines of my choice. The whole basis of the constitution was to try to protect the people fro the tyranny of the despot and/or the mob.