I have determined that popular voting is not a good way to choose our leaders

[Cancel 2020.1]

It's just not. We're too dopey as a populace. I remember when the 1st Bush had to make a big deal out of eating pork rinds to appeal to "regular folks," and Clinton talked about "huntin' & fishin'," and there was actually a few weeks worth of discussion on "who would you rather have a beer with?" for Bush/Kerry.

It's coming to a head w/ the popularity of Trump. I have never felt like such an "intellectual elitist" in my life - I want to get in a room w/ these people and try to talk some sense into them. Try to figure out what makes them tick, and what they could possibly be thinking.

The bottom line is that most issues are beyond the comprehension of the average American, and most Americans are working too hard & too busy to put the time in to try to figure them out. We don't understand trade, we don't really know what would work with immigration. Taxes & healthcare are ridiculously complicated. We're just not getting good leaders if we vote for funny soundbites and outrageous tweets, and fall for some guy who says things will be "amazing and huge."

[Konono]

Who should choose our leaders?

[Cancel 2020.1]

Who should choose our leaders?

I haven't thought that far into it yet. Maybe a group of left & right think-tanks, or an SAT-like test that is more centered around policy.

There have to be better ways.

[canceled.2021.1]

I haven't thought that far into it yet. Maybe a group of left & right think-tanks, or an SAT-like test that is more centered around policy.

There have to be better ways.

And then you would have to decide who writes the test

Look this is what you get for eschewing e republic you were given by the founders.

Suck it

[NOVA]

I thought desh had thingy pretty well schooled on all those subjects......maybe we could enlist her to choose our leaders...

[NOVA]

I haven't thought that far into it yet. Maybe a group of left & right think-tanks, or an SAT-like test that is more centered around policy.

There have to be better ways.

So you've given up on democracy....?

[Callinectes]

And then you would have to decide who writes the test

Look this is what you get for eschewing e republic you were given by the founders.

Suck it

I really this to death.

[Legion Troll]

For the founders, the selection of a republican (small r, not big R) model of governance was, to their understanding, the key to maintaining the United States’ long term success and viability.

And it also means that they probably did NOT want you to vote.

Many of the founders believed that, generally speaking, the mass of citizens are corruptible and easily swayed. This makes them susceptible to charismatic leaders, or even chaotic mob rule. So if you let the people decide what to do, it won’t be long before they either hand the reins of government over to some charming rapscallion who will quickly establish himself as a brutal despot, or the whole thing will simply devolve into anarchy and bloodshed.

For that reason, they championed the notion of a small coterie of talented, capable, virtuous people to make the political decisions on everyone’s behalf.

In other words, you should have elections so that the citizens may choose the best and brightest from among their ranks to go forth and rule the nation.

The key word here is “citizen.” The idea is that the most qualified citizens should choose from among their own ranks.

Do you think you’re a qualified citizen? Really? Because odds are, they didn’t.

It took nearly two centuries for the nation to move towards a model approaching universal suffrage. Until the mid-1960s, many African Americans were precluded from voting in much of the South. Arizona and Maine prevented American Indians from voting (despite their U.S. citizenship) until the mid-20th century.

Prior to 1920, voting rights for women were partial in some places and denied altogether in much of the country.

Before the Civil War, almost no African Americans people, including free blacks, could vote.

And until the 1820s, even most white guys were denied the right to cast a ballot.

Not only did the founders generally approve of denying women and non-whites the right to vote, but they thought it advisable that qualified white men should meet certain requirements, most often based on net worth.

They deemed this a sign of someone being smart, capable, and hopefully beyond corruption because they weren’t economically vulnerable; the founders feared poor people would sell their votes.

For the first couple of decades after the Constitution’s ratification, some states even restricted voting based on religious affiliation.

The republic that the founders created extended voting rights to only 10-15% of the population.

what could they actually vote for? Not much, really.

The only federal office they could vote for directly was the House of Representatives.

Senators were chosen by state legislatures until the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913.

All federal judges are appointed, not elected.

And, even today, none of us can vote for a presidential candidate; instead, we vote for electors from the Electoral College, who are duty bound, but not actually required, to vote for that person on our behalf.

It’s yet another buffer the founders placed between the sliver of the population they thought should be allowed to vote, and the mechanisms of power they would be indirectly influencing.

If an Electoral College member doesn’t vote as promised, they’re called a Faithless Elector.

But I mean, that would never happen, right?

Actually, it’s happened dozens of times, most recently in 1968 when a Republican-pledged elector from North Carolina went with his conscience and cast an official electoral vote not for Richard Nixon, as voters had directed him, but for American Independent Party nominee George Wallace who was, for the record, a racist douchebag running on a platform of “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”

When you go into the booth to cast ballots on behalf of your chosen federal, state, and local candidates, as well as various initiatives and bond measures, remember this:

If you're not one of the privileged elite of this nation, assuming you’re not a white male living in the top 10-15%, remember that the your simple act of your participating in this election would make many of the founders shit a brick. Indeed, we don’t always get what the founders wanted, and that’s actually a good thing.


http://www.thepublicprofessor.com/the-founding-fathers-did-not-want-you-to-vote/

[NOVA]

Actually, there have been 'faithless electors' recorded in 1972,76,84,88, 2000 and 2004

[Callinectes]

It's just not. We're too dopey as a populace. I remember when the 1st Bush had to make a big deal out of eating pork rinds to appeal to "regular folks," and Clinton talked about "huntin' & fishin'," and there was actually a few weeks worth of discussion on "who would you rather have a beer with?" for Bush/Kerry.

It's coming to a head w/ the popularity of Trump. I have never felt like such an "intellectual elitist" in my life - I want to get in a room w/ these people and try to talk some sense into them. Try to figure out what makes them tick, and what they could possibly be thinking.

The bottom line is that most issues are beyond the comprehension of the average American, and most Americans are working too hard & too busy to put the time in to try to figure them out. We don't understand trade, we don't really know what would work with immigration. Taxes & healthcare are ridiculously complicated. We're just not getting good leaders if we vote for funny soundbites and outrageous tweets, and fall for some guy who says things will be "amazing and huge."

Don't worry your your pretty little intellectual elitist head about it. All it's going take is for the current crop of hippies to get their way for a few election cycles. Then all the free stuff will run out, or you'll be fighting for scraps with the legal illegal immigrants. But the SSCOTUS(Sharia Supreme Court Of The United States)will rule that the new status quo is legal, and call for the last republican to be burned alive. Just watch the movie "Idiocracy", it'll give you a glimpse of the future. I think it should be a documentary.

[Legion Troll]

Actually, there have been 'faithless electors' recorded in 1972,76,84,88, 2000 and 2004

That's why my post says it's happened dozens of times.

In 157 instances, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Three votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate.

The remaining 83 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the U.S. presidential election of 1836, in which 23 Virginia electors conspired to change their vote together.

As of the 2012 presidential election, there has been only one occasion when faithless electors prevented an expected winner from winning the electoral college vote outright: in 1836, twenty-three faithless electors prevented Richard Mentor Johnson, the expected candidate, from winning the majority of votes for the Vice Presidency. However, Johnson was promptly elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate in February 1837; therefore, faithless electors have never changed the expected final outcome of the entire election process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

Poor Blabo.

[Konono]

I haven't thought that far into it yet. Maybe a group of left & right think-tanks, or an SAT-like test that is more centered around policy.

There have to be better ways.

Interesting idea. I guess I don't people who simply pass a test choosing my candidate for me. There are many facets to politics and many of them are personal and not always driven by policy, while policy is definitely, maybe, 80-90% for me, I don't know about other people. For example, wasn't there a black republican congressman who said he was voting for Obama because he was black? Also, for some people it could be religious or whatever.

Look at Trump. The guy is a moron of the highest caliber, and he lies nearly everytime he opens his mouth, but I've been reading his popularity is due in large part to people wanting to shake things up in DC, they are tired of both parties and the status quo. I made a thread pondering whether I would vote for him just to see him rattle DC and shake things up for both parties. I don't believe he can destroy this country, he would only last one term and there is some appeal, despite most of his ridiculous policies, just to shake things up.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

We should prohibit undesirables from voting.

[Konono]

Don't worry your your pretty little intellectual elitist head about it. All it's going take is for the current crop of hippies to get their way for a few election cycles. Then all the free stuff will run out, or you'll be fighting for scraps with the legal illegal immigrants. But the SSCOTUS(Sharia Supreme Court Of The United States)will rule that the new status quo is legal, and call for the last republican to be burned alive. Just watch the movie "Idiocracy", it'll give you a glimpse of the future. I think it should be a documentary.

Somebody recommended that to me as a way to get a "real" view of American politics. Quite entertaining and educational.

[Konono]

I haven't thought that far into it yet. Maybe a group of left & right think-tanks, or an SAT-like test that is more centered around policy.

There have to be better ways.

I just want to say, that this is a very fascinating thread subject. Thank you.

I thought of something after I made the previous post, there is no test to hold public office, I know about the no religious test, but I do not believe there is a test to hold public office, well, I guess for the judicial branch, but not for any other branch. Is my understanding of American politics correct?