Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by Brenngun

The mode has everything to do with it. The President is not accountable directly to the people as a whole. I know that's the popular belief but it's not how the system is structured. If that's what you want the President should be determined by the popular vote and nothing else. There should be no party or electoral college involved. The term "ruling class" doesn't refer exclusively to a monarchy. There are many forms of a ruling class but the common thread is a group or class of people who exert power to determine political agenda. That definitely sounds like a electoral college. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ........

All from Federalist 68 which you quoted before:

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided."

"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

"The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes."

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption."

"But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment."

"Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves."

Quack, quack...

Why the process of electing the president involves an electoral college, and is not done by popular vote -

As explained in Federalist 10:


"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters."

These are excerpts. Best to read Federalist 10 in it's entirety.

Originally Posted by gugi

Not too bright this Federalist #84 bloke, is he

He shoulda known all is superseded by human nature being human nature and the heart wants what it wants. Nudge nudge, wink wink

This is the biggest problem with any political/socio/economic system. Wether it be Leninism, Ayn Rands capitalism, theocracies, human nature is what it is. Honest people are the gullible and naive in the eyes of the predator class. Whats the answer? Damned if I know. But I do not trust the poor little rich girl or the guy who made his fortune going broke on other peoples money. If I vote it will be third party. A waste you say? At least I will sleep at night knowing I did my best, it will probably be what you did that will keep me up at nights! LOL

In the current election, just as many elections before it, there is really no one to vote for. This election there isn't even a lesser evil. God help us.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Honest people are the gullible and naive in the eyes of the predator class. Whats the answer? Damned if I know.

May be the answer is the obvious - be a prey, a predator, or learn to stop worrying and love the bomb

Originally Posted by gugi

Not too bright this Federalist #84 bloke, is he

He shoulda known all is superseded by human nature being human nature and the heart wants what it wants. Nudge nudge, wink wink

Hamilton not too bright? Bright enough to write this from Federalist #1 (human nature indeed...):

"Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

And, if you are alluding to the Reynold's incident (nudge nudge, wink wink), what of it? Just another meaningless ad hominem. Just demonstrates Hamilton's humanness and takes nothing away from his words.

Originally Posted by honedright

Hamilton not too bright?

Dunno, I was talking about some Federalist #84 dude, and now there's yet another Federalist #1. Why can't they just sign their names - nobody will ever forget Mr. John Hancock

As far as Hamilton if you do happen to have tickets I want them! In fact we can go together

I think I understand your point, though - the system is great, too bad the people can't help themselves and keep screwing it all up; even over all of the warnings on the label how not to mess it up.
Hard to argue with that.

OMG did you feel the Earth shake a bit ???

That was the knees buckling of Liberals everywhere

White House Watch - Rasmussen Reports™


Wait for the "Rasmussen is a terrible inaccurate poll" remarks from the left,, unless the results were reversed then the remarks would be from the right hehehehe

I wonder if there is any chance that Bernie would break and go third party. He seems to have a very loyal and active fan base and I think he's having the time of his life. That would cook Hillary's goose but I wonder if Bernie's loyalty to the party is strong enough to override the support of his fan base.

Granted, Nader didn't break from party lines and turn independent, but Nader ran for Nader and Nader's fans. Might it be the same with Bernie running for Bernie and his fans rather than support Hillary and bow out soon?



ChrisL

Best one I heard this morning after the poll broke was

"Hillary is going to have to ask Bernie to be the VP for the left to win"

reality whether you want to admit it or not is that Bernie and 7+ years of Obama have pulled the Democrats way left so far left that Trump is a centrist and is appealing to the masses

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Best one I heard this morning after the poll broke was "Hillary is going to have to ask Bernie to be the VP for the left to win"

This makes more sense for the Democrats.

ChrisL