I tend to agree with your second paragraph. "Back in the day", voting was done more at a household level, presumably ultimately decided by the head of the household, and was only allowed by those who had skin in the game, i.e. landowners.
If you think that only landowners had "skin in the game" as far as the direction of the country . . . well, not only are you bad at political theory, but you don't understand much economics either. We knew that of course.
No, that's not why the electoral college exists. It's not at all why the electoral college exists. Here's how you know that: when the EC was created, no state used any EC-type structure in their own politics. None went to an EC structure after ratification. There was every bit as much danger of the uninformed masses electing dangerous people in state government, and state government was a much bigger % of government at the time.
My personal opinion is that there will never again be a constitutional amendment unless/until we have some sort of major crisis/collapse/sea change in American politics.
While I agree with this in general, I'd make an exception for presidential immunity. Once Trump is gone from the stage, Republicans might figure out that presidential immunity is in fact bad. That's especially true if there's Dem in office.
I'm skeptical whether Republicans would ever truly get to a point where they support limiting presidential immunity unless the party composition drastically changes. They have been steadily pushing for more executive authority and less executive accountability for decades.
That’s a primitive way of looking at it. All of the governed have skin in the game, even those who aren’t afforded the right to vote.
At the time of the Philadelphia convention, no other country in the world directly elected its chief executive, so the delegates were wading into uncharted territory. Further complicating the task was a deep-rooted distrust of executive power. After all, the fledgling nation had just fought its way out from under a tyrannical king and overreaching colonial governors. They didn’t want another despot on their hands.
www.history.com
I agree that everyone has skin in the game and certainly decisions should be made by more than white, land-owning men, but it also may not be the best solution to have EVERY person over 18 permitted to vote. Just like you wouldn't want only white land owners determining the direction at a country/state/local level, you wouldn't want only the unemployed/retired determining the direction of the country.
I will not be following you into this field of landmines.
Is anyone advocating for "only the unemployed/retired determining the direction of the country"?
If EVERY person is permitted to vote, how could there be a situation in which only the _____ demographic determines anything? Inclusion is the remedy for exclusion.
1. History.com is not a reputable source, any more than quantummechanics.com would be a go-to source for understanding beta decay.At the time of the Philadelphia convention, no other country in the world directly elected its chief executive, so the delegates were wading into uncharted territory. Further complicating the task was a deep-rooted distrust of executive power. After all, the fledgling nation had just fought its way out from under a tyrannical king and overreaching colonial governors. They didn’t want another despot on their hands.
One group of delegates felt strongly that Congress shouldn’t have anything to do with picking the president. Too much opportunity for chummy corruption between the executive and legislative branches.
Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.
Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency.
Why Was the Electoral College Created? | HISTORY
The Founding Fathers had to compromise when it came to devising a system to elect the president.
Well, I didn't see too many people anywhere in the legal community arguing in favor of Trump's immunity. Everyone assumed that the Court would deny it, because the underlying position was so radical and nonsensical.
History.com is just the website for the History channel. Is there a specific reason that you view their site as unreliable?
