“We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, represen

Most of the Constitution was compromises. Almost no major provision was the original idea of most members.

You are right, today a compromise is seen as selling out your principles.
Agreed. That's the way it works when large groups of people seek to make a treaty or constitution.

Sadly true. Extremists don't budge from their extreme views. Sane, rational people understand compromise is necessary in order to move forward.

In the case of the Constitution, the 3/5s compromise was necessary to the creation of the United States. Otherwise, the concept would have dissolved into two different nations.

Why people whine about it over two centuries later seems silly to me. All it proves to me is that they don't understand the concept of compromise, meaning they tend to be extremists themselves.
 
“We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, representatives, everybody else – whoever gets the most votes wins,” Raskin said. “We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year exporting American democracy to other countries, and the one thing they never come back to us with is the idea that, ‘Oh, that electoral college that you have, that’s so great, we think we will adopt that too’.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...skin-electoral-college-danger-american-people

The United States was never organized as a democracy. You are again discarding the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of every State.
 
We are a democracy, which means rule by the people. No nation on earth has ever even aspired to be a pure democracy. False problem.

We are not a democracy. You are denying history, where democracy was actually tried (with disastrous results!).
The United States was never organized as a democracy.
 
It is a concern, however, point of a democracy is to represent the citizenry, and the vast majority of Americans do live in a handful of large States and urban areas.

A democracy has no representatives and no constitution. YOU want an oligarchy, not a democracy.
 
Not entirely true, we are a Democratic Republic, we vote democratically to select our representatives in that Federal Republic

There is no such thing as a 'democratic republic'. A democracy has no constitution and no representatives. A republic has both.
The President of the United States is not elected by popular vote.
 
No, it’s not, otherwise explain the words of James Madison “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” James Madison

That is the opinion of one man on one issue. There were several proposals for choosing the president and there was very little support for popular election and they had nothing to do with slavery.

The following are some quotes from delegates about popular election.

Morris: In wondering whether the revolution has gotten out of hand warned “…the mob (has) begun to think and reason.”

Gerry: In discussing the country’s problems said “...the evil we experience flow from the excesses of democracy.”

Mason: “It would be as unnatural ... to let the people choose the president as it would be to refer a trial of colors to a blind man.”

Hamilton: “The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge right.”

Sherman: “The people immediately should have as little to do as may be about the government.”

Gouverneur Morris: Morris argued for property qualifications for the voters and stated “give the votes to the people who have no property and they will sell them to the rich who will be able to buy them.”

Dickinson: Dickinson considered property qualifications a “necessary defense against the dangerous influence of those multitudes without property and without principles, with which our country like all others, will in time abound.”

Some actually worried a popular vote would give too much power to the slave states because they could give slaves the vote which their owners could easily control.

Recent revisionist interpretations have given excessive influence to slavery throughout American history which have been debunked by the most respected historians for each period.
 
Lol, this dumbass is like, "Lies and personal attacks," as he lobs lies and personal attacks. Dutch, name us one person in your personal life who respects you. You don't need to worry about my work schedule this week -- or ever. I have come so much farther than you ever could.

That's just sad in it's own right.
 
Because in America, everyone is created equal. Look it up.

And if not, who's going to decide the value of each voter's vote?

Ah. This old misquote again.

No, people are NOT created equal. This phrase simply means that no one in the United States has a title by inheritance. No nobles. No kings. No royalty.
 
Appeasing the slave states is the Project 1619 revisionist explanation. The original debate was a compromise between those wanting Congress to select the president and those wanting a popular vote.

There is no compromise. The President is not elected by popular vote.
 
Compromise. Isn't that a dirty word for both the Democrats and Republicans these days?

If the Founders refused to compromise just like today's Congress, there'd be no United States. World history would have changed from the War of 1812 to the Cold War.

You don't get to speak for the dead.
 
In the case of the Constitution, the 3/5s compromise was necessary to the creation of the United States. Otherwise, the concept would have dissolved into two different nations.

The 3/5 compromise turned out to be a good thing because if the slave states had 100% representation they would have had more power in Congress during some of the important votes.
 
Well, golly, precise definitions do not matter?

Good to know that imprecise definitions matter to you.

He is locked in yet another paradox. He is claiming a precise definition while claiming imprecise definition. He is trying to change the meaning of words again, and he locked himself into another paradox doing it. He is being irrational.
 
Back
Top