BS, Then what is the need to bargain the black man as 60% of white man? The south will lose every single election if black men aren't given the vote because the north had so many more white men and fewer blacks. So the south has to find a way to count the black votes WITHOUT giving them the vote. ERGO EC was created as a bargain. The south ofcourse lied about the reason for the creation of EC as state rights. IT IS STATE RIGHTS IN THE SOUTH TO COUNT THE BLACK PERSON WITHOUT THE VOTE. This is the truth. No other explanation will fully explain the conundrum of HOW TO COUNT THE BLACKS IN ELECTION without giving them the vote. |
Go back to sleep |
Such a system would be mob rule. Minorities issues would be suppressed. |
Direct democracy was impractical in the past, though possible now with technology. The question becomes who drafts the legislation, at what threshold should the citizenry be presented with legislation? |
Read a history book. You are mistaken. |
Follow your own words. Obviously you are "poorly educated" who the puppet loves. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/ |
Note it says some. So it's not fact. Personally, the biggest reason for the electoral college was a lack of trust in the common man. Yes, there was a practical matter of timely voting as well but mainly a lack of trust in the unwashed masses. The 3/5 compromise was purely about power. The South wanted the "voting power" of the slaves to stack the House of Representatives. The South feared the North's strong opposition to slavery and was keenly interested in preserving State's rights--Rights as it pertains to legislative power. Yes, the Southern States argued for allegiance to the Constitution but only as long as slavery was legal. State rights is one reason the Confederacy was a failure. A State's rights were more important than allegiance to the Confederacy. |
Money tree? |
+1. |
OP = AOC |
late to the game -haven't read through the posts But . . . we are not a social democracy. |
oh, OK You're one of "them." Well, you're only slamming history teachers. As an English teacher, while I may give context around a novel, I don't get into the political systems. I don't believe math or science teachers do either. or art . . . or PE . . . or technology . . . So you may need to take your cause elsewhere. |
Americans don't know what a democracy is, and thus that's why the word democracy is used all the time by politicians and teachers. The more the word is used, the less we have of it.
If we wanted a truly representative government, we would <select delegates>, not <elect representatives>, by random lottery. No elections. No money. No campaigns pleading with people to "vote for me." Random selection of delegates would produce a subset of the larger population that is representative of the larger community. Instead, what we get with elections is a legislative body comprised of mostly rich people, and friends of rich people, acting in the interest of the rich. The central problem of living in large groups is how do we make large-scale decisions? Monarchy and other forms of autocratic rule are not acceptable, nor is parliamentary republics. Both are tyrannies. Yet, how do we live and work in small groups, while making large-scale decisions? |
But a pure democracy is also a tyrrany. The tyrrany of mob rule. The needs of the weak would be trampled by the desires of the strong. |
Your poorly written and punctuated post proves my point about teachers. And you teach English! |