What if we had a CONSTITUTIONAL Presidential Election?

[DGS49]

The state legislatures would choose Electors equal in number to their combined total of senators and congresspersons, then those electors would vote according to their best judgment. Those 50 sets of votes would be sent to the Senate, tallied up, and the winner(s) named: President and Vice President. If possible, the Electors would NOT reveal their choices in advance, but merely be people in whom the legislators place a bit of trust. That's a pipe-dream, eh?

The idea of giving all of the States' votes to the person who wins the popular vote in that state is non-Constitutional, though not UN-Constitutional. In fact, it is an abrogation of the obligation of the state legislators to exercise THEIR OWN judgment in the matter.

The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy, placing no actual decision making authority in the hands of The People - only the election of those would actually make the difficult decisions. They knew that The People are largely ignorant, and would be swayed by passions of the moment, charlatans promising who-knows-what, and personalities, good and bad - all tendencies that were exacerbated by the dreadful decision to give women the right to vote. And don't get me started with the stupid decision to allow 18's to vote.

Any guesses on what would happen if we had an election that was held as the Founders conceived it?

 

[norwegen]

The people had a voice in the beginning - the House of Representatives.

The malcontents, of course, insisted on speaking for the Untied States, and then the states.

If we abided originalism, Democrats would seldom win any election.

 

[Oddball]

One of the scenarios that I've not seen fleshed out is the one where the courts declare that the election operations in PA, MI, WI, and GA to be so corrupted that they're declared null and void, and throw the onus onto the assemblies of those states.

Not any less likely than anything else.

 

[Bleipriester]

The state legislatures would choose Electors equal in number to their combined total of senators and congresspersons, then those electors would vote according to their best judgment. Those 50 sets of votes would be sent to the Senate, tallied up, and the winner(s) named: President and Vice President. If possible, the Electors would NOT reveal their choices in advance, but merely be people in whom the legislators place a bit of trust. That's a pipe-dream, eh?

The idea of giving all of the States' votes to the person who wins the popular vote in that state is non-Constitutional, though not UN-Constitutional. In fact, it is an abrogation of the obligation of the state legislators to exercise THEIR OWN judgment in the matter.

The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy, placing no actual decision making authority in the hands of The People - only the election of those would actually make the difficult decisions. They knew that The People are largely ignorant, and would be swayed by passions of the moment, charlatans promising who-knows-what, and personalities, good and bad - all tendencies that were exacerbated by the dreadful decision to give women the right to vote. And don't get me started with the stupid decision to allow 18's to vote.

Any guesses on what would happen if we had an election that was held as the Founders conceived it?

You would probably not be voting. Only Land Lords would vote.

 

[Taz]

The state legislatures would choose Electors equal in number to their combined total of senators and congresspersons, then those electors would vote according to their best judgment. Those 50 sets of votes would be sent to the Senate, tallied up, and the winner(s) named: President and Vice President. If possible, the Electors would NOT reveal their choices in advance, but merely be people in whom the legislators place a bit of trust. That's a pipe-dream, eh?

The idea of giving all of the States' votes to the person who wins the popular vote in that state is non-Constitutional, though not UN-Constitutional. In fact, it is an abrogation of the obligation of the state legislators to exercise THEIR OWN judgment in the matter.

The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy, placing no actual decision making authority in the hands of The People - only the election of those would actually make the difficult decisions. They knew that The People are largely ignorant, and would be swayed by passions of the moment, charlatans promising who-knows-what, and personalities, good and bad - all tendencies that were exacerbated by the dreadful decision to give women the right to vote. And don't get me started with the stupid decision to allow 18's to vote.

Any guesses on what would happen if we had an election that was held as the Founders conceived it?

Trump would still lose.

 

[rightwinger]

I trust the people more than I trust State Legislatures

 

[Rye Catcher]

The people had a voice in the beginning - the House of Representatives.

The malcontents, of course, insisted on speaking for the Untied States, and then the states.

If we abided originalism, Democrats would seldom win any election.

Maybe Healthcare should be regulated to require Doctors to practice medicine with only the tools used by doctors in the 18th century? See how much we could save if the only treatment for the very sick was blood letting? Originalism is ridiculous; are we required to rewrite dictionaries to use the same spelling as used in COTUS? To allow any citizen to own, possess and have in their custody and control a surface to air missile? To eliminate Judicial Review?

 

[gipper]

I trust the people more than I trust State Legislatures

But not the federal government???

 

[EL Rich]

Why in this country do we insist on creating a cult-like reverence for the founding fathers? Hamilton originally presented a Constitution that had Presidents serving for life and Senators serving for 25 year terms. Jefferson actually thought authority was so corrupting that armed revolt every 50 or so years was required to maintain a democracy. So Hamilton’s vision was a dictator and Jefferson’s was creating a backwater republic that would constantly dealing with coups and civil wars? I for one am glad the collective decision making bodies have checked both of these.
Maybe we just grow up and accept that no system is perfect and the one we have is actually pretty good compared to real world alternatives. Not too many countries could do 4 years at each other’s throats like we just did and come out the other side without full scale revolt and a peaceful power transition (the peaceful power transition is still a bit of a hope though, eh?)
So all in all, I think the mechanisms of government actually still work pretty well.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I trust the people more than I trust State Legislatures

I trust neither. The people are imbeciles and the politicians are corrupt

 

[Canon Shooter]

Not too many countries could do 4 years at each other’s throats like we just did and come out the other side without full scale revolt...

The day is young...

 

[beautress]

I trust the people more than I trust State Legislatures

That's because the reason we have a huge block of land, and to get there it took almost two centuries of dealing with finite areas' people through promised respect that the area's people would have a say in the nation, protected by the college of electors. To disrespect people-acknowledging covenants would unamerican not to mention patronizingly uncouth. It also would guarantee loss of states or severe genocide of proud states and disunity along with egregious loss of resources of earth's bounty in this hemisphere. You don't expect the rest of us participate in such a senseless footshoot, do you?

 

[danielpalos]

The state legislatures would choose Electors equal in number to their combined total of senators and congresspersons, then those electors would vote according to their best judgment. Those 50 sets of votes would be sent to the Senate, tallied up, and the winner(s) named: President and Vice President. If possible, the Electors would NOT reveal their choices in advance, but merely be people in whom the legislators place a bit of trust. That's a pipe-dream, eh?

The idea of giving all of the States' votes to the person who wins the popular vote in that state is non-Constitutional, though not UN-Constitutional. In fact, it is an abrogation of the obligation of the state legislators to exercise THEIR OWN judgment in the matter.

The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy, placing no actual decision making authority in the hands of The People - only the election of those would actually make the difficult decisions. They knew that The People are largely ignorant, and would be swayed by passions of the moment, charlatans promising who-knows-what, and personalities, good and bad - all tendencies that were exacerbated by the dreadful decision to give women the right to vote. And don't get me started with the stupid decision to allow 18's to vote.

Any guesses on what would happen if we had an election that was held as the Founders conceived it?

We don't need right wing Hoax.

This is our secular and temporal "bible"' for the militia of the United States and our supreme civil law of the land for the faithful:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

 

[danielpalos]

The state legislatures would choose Electors equal in number to their combined total of senators and congresspersons, then those electors would vote according to their best judgment. Those 50 sets of votes would be sent to the Senate, tallied up, and the winner(s) named: President and Vice President. If possible, the Electors would NOT reveal their choices in advance, but merely be people in whom the legislators place a bit of trust. That's a pipe-dream, eh?

The idea of giving all of the States' votes to the person who wins the popular vote in that state is non-Constitutional, though not UN-Constitutional. In fact, it is an abrogation of the obligation of the state legislators to exercise THEIR OWN judgment in the matter.

The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy, placing no actual decision making authority in the hands of The People - only the election of those would actually make the difficult decisions. They knew that The People are largely ignorant, and would be swayed by passions of the moment, charlatans promising who-knows-what, and personalities, good and bad - all tendencies that were exacerbated by the dreadful decision to give women the right to vote. And don't get me started with the stupid decision to allow 18's to vote.

Any guesses on what would happen if we had an election that was held as the Founders conceived it?

You would probably not be voting. Only Land Lords would vote.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[danielpalos]

Why in this country do we insist on creating a cult-like reverence for the founding fathers? Hamilton originally presented a Constitution that had Presidents serving for life and Senators serving for 25 year terms. Jefferson actually thought authority was so corrupting that armed revolt every 50 or so years was required to maintain a democracy. So Hamilton’s vision was a dictator and Jefferson’s was creating a backwater republic that would constantly dealing with coups and civil wars? I for one am glad the collective decision making bodies have checked both of these.
Maybe we just grow up and accept that no system is perfect and the one we have is actually pretty good compared to real world alternatives. Not too many countries could do 4 years at each other’s throats like we just did and come out the other side without full scale revolt and a peaceful power transition (the peaceful power transition is still a bit of a hope though, eh?)
So all in all, I think the mechanisms of government actually still work pretty well.

They did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Why in this country do we insist on creating a cult-like reverence for the founding fathers? Hamilton originally presented a Constitution that had Presidents serving for life and Senators serving for 25 year terms. Jefferson actually thought authority was so corrupting that armed revolt every 50 or so years was required to maintain a democracy. So Hamilton’s vision was a dictator and Jefferson’s was creating a backwater republic that would constantly dealing with coups and civil wars? I for one am glad the collective decision making bodies have checked both of these.
Maybe we just grow up and accept that no system is perfect and the one we have is actually pretty good compared to real world alternatives. Not too many countries could do 4 years at each other’s throats like we just did and come out the other side without full scale revolt and a peaceful power transition (the peaceful power transition is still a bit of a hope though, eh?)
So all in all, I think the mechanisms of government actually still work pretty well.

Well stated. I'd like to add that had either Jefferson, Hamilton or Madison, etc. considered someone like McConnell's abuse of the power as he has, the rules in the senate must be affirmed by We the People. I also believe We the People ought to require an up or down vote on each member of the Supreme Court in the General Election post their ten years in this current live appointment. If the Justice is not supported by a majority of the voters, s/he will be required to once more appear before the Senate as any new nomination has been put forth by POTUS.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Why in this country do we insist on creating a cult-like reverence for the founding fathers?

Because the founding was a unique situation that gathered some of the smartest men in the English speaking world to organize a union of competing states, not unlike the competing states of Europe.

Maybe we just grow up and accept that no system is perfect and the one we have is actually pretty good compared to real world alternatives.

Dogma. Constitutional dogma. People excuse themselves from the responsibility of trying to deliberate a better system. It is very difficult for the average person to comprehend textural renditions of new ideas that challenge the rules that they have been working with for many years. Lawyers, scientists, and engineers, are probably the people that are most apt to be able to comprehend the new ideas.

It would be extremely difficult to teach civics and explain that its not perfect and nobody is trying to design a better system.

Not too many countries could do 4 years at each other’s throats like we just did and come out the other side without full scale revolt and a peaceful power transition (the peaceful power transition is still a bit of a hope though, eh?)
So all in all, I think the mechanisms of government actually still work pretty well.

The American governing system is too big to fail, and the standard of living is so far above the threshold for large scale rebellion that the small rebellions, that got pretty big this past summer, are somewhat disregarded as just disgruntled people.

They did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

No. The Constitution sucks. It was adequate up until the Civil War; but nobody had any ideas as to how to reorder the Constitution. The three-part separation theory is improperly deployed, and the problems cause the political chaos that trickles down causing the social disorderliness we endure. The power is improperly distributed and the checks on power are not balanced, because the government is not divided and separated sophisticated enough for the expanded security services that have been unfurled over the two hundred and forty years.

A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances

http://www.us4cc.info

www.usmessageboard.com

United States Fourth Continental Congress

The United States Fourth Continental Congress (US4CC) will probably be the designation for the inevitable venue that orders the succeeding charter to the subsisting United States Constitution that was composed in 1787 by the legendary Philadelphia Convention, which for convenience for...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[postman]

Any guesses on what would happen if we had an election that was held as the Founders conceived it?

That is why constitutional amendment were made to make us a "more perfect union". If you truly wanted the original franchise to be used today, then the electoral college would be as you described, a group of learned men chosen by the legislature for their political knowledge and rational thinking.

But in todays hyper political world, partisan state legislatures would chose along strict ideological lines giving us pretty much what we currently have. Except with a time delay of the changing demographics. It would be the legislature elected 2 years prior that choses the electors, rather than the legislature just elected, that more closely follows the positions of the people.

 

[beautress]

One of the scenarios that I've not seen fleshed out is the one where the courts declare that the election operations in PA, MI, WI, and GA to be so corrupted that they're declared null and void, and throw the onus onto the assemblies of those states.

Not any less likely than anything else.

One reason might be the heroism of everyday Pennsylvanians on 9/11. They chose a certain death for themselves rather than to allow brainwashed terrorists to take the plane and destroy another major political target filled with hundreds if not thousands of their fellow countrymen. There are heroes just like them in every state in this union who believe in God and each other with only one difference: it was Pennsylvanians who proved intelligence and no greater love has any man than he that lays down his life to save another.

How could we deny a single one of their children or family, friend or other of their vote? Our dear Democrats have replaced their common sense with failing to exercise respect for how it came to be that they can behave like 2-year olds in a room filled with experienced adults? We need to watch over them, and discipline them harshly if they resume murdering strangers on the street just because someone like Maxine Waters tells them to go for it,?

If the Democrats need tough love or else let them continue murdering cops and people wearing red hats, then tough love it should be. They're playing with fire and they force others to put out the fire while they go home safe. Never again.

 

[postman]

One of the scenarios that I've not seen fleshed out is the one where the courts declare that the election operations in PA, MI, WI, and GA to be so corrupted that they're declared null and void, and throw the onus onto the assemblies of those states.

Not any less likely than anything else.

The problem with that is a split congress. It takes both the house and the senate to throw out the EC votes from a state. And they will never reach an agreement. An example of divided government in (in)action.