If there were 2 Constitutional Amendments up for ratification (Page 2): Yes, but we aren't discussing a representative government (Choosing people who make decisions). We are talking...

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Architect1776 wrote:

That is why there is a representative government.

Yes, but we aren't discussing a representative government (Choosing people who make decisions). We are talking about two tiers of representation: Choosing people who choose the people who make decisions.

That was not part of the founder's discussions, largely because, as I stated, it was needed for an entirely practical matter --- lack of mass communication. That was never explicitly mentioned because it was just the way of life back then. Information would only move at the speed of horse (approx sustained 10 mph, assuming you can change horses every couple hours) --- AND, they had no reason to believe that it would ever change.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Bill 45 wrote:

Good thing, because he has no idea what he is writing about.

Says BillIQ45

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

WNYShooter wrote:

Talk about rewriting history. What you say here is not even remotely factual.

???
What part is not factual???

"At the time, there was no mass communication" --- TRUE.

"telegraph was still a half-century off" -- TRUE

"radio & TV much further." -- TRUE

"Hence, it would be impossible for the average citizen to know anything about candidate for state-wide or national office." -- slight hyperbole, but essentially true. Newspapers were even more partisan than they are today, and had a many-day delay before even they got the information. The only way to get honest information about a candidate would be to meet them personally, and there was no way a state-wide candidate, let alone a national candidate like President, could visit every town in a state. This is why even state Governors at the time were chosen by the state legislature. (NJ didn't start direct election of Governor until 1844)

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

JamesCurran wrote:

??? br What part is not factual??? br br "At... (show quote)

What you're saying has absolutely no relevance as to why the founders originally chose to have the Senators selected by the State legislatures. The founders were never for for a pure Democracy.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

WNYShooter wrote:

What you're saying has absolutely no relevance as to why the founders originally chose to have the Senators selected by the State legislatures. The founders were never for for a pure Democracy.

Ok, then give some citation of the "real" reason the founders had the people chose someone to chose someone to be Senator (while they could directly chose someone to be a Representative)

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

JamesCurran wrote:

Ok, then give some citation of the "real" reason the founders had the people chose someone to chose someone to be Senator (while they could directly chose someone to be a Representative)

You can start at Federalist Papers #62.

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

Tex-s wrote:

... but is seems clear to me that the US founding revolved around life, and denying the right to others to command it, define it, control it or end it.

Your last sentence just argued against the Texas anti-abortion law!

berchman Loc: South Central PA

Tex-s wrote:

I don't claim to be an authority on all things, but is seems clear to me that the US founding revolved around life, and denying the right to others to command it, define it, control it or end it.

If you're against abortion why don't you just say it instead of writing this obfuscatory legalistic stuff?

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Architect1776 wrote:

This is not a Constitutional item that needs to be... (show quote)

I think you are right about what you say.

But having said that I wish Texas had never brought this up at this point. This issue will deflect the independents and those leaning Conservative to vote Democrat. At least wait till after Nov. 2024. Texas blew it, Sheesh!

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

Fotoartist wrote:

I think you are right about what you say.

But having said that I wish Texas had never brought this up at this point. This issue will deflect the independents and those leaning Conservative to vote Democrat. At least wait till after Nov. 202. Texas blew it, Sheesh!

Shouldn't you have be a little more specific.

The Texas GOP shouldn’t have brought this up at this point!

The GOP all across the "South" are trying to turn women into chattel, setting women's rights back over 173 years.

https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/WIC/Historical-Essays/No-Lady/Womens-Rights/

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

Shouldn't you have be a little more specific.

The Texas GOP shouldn’t have brought this up at this point!

The GOP all across the "South" are trying to turn women into chattel, setting women's rights back over 173 years.

https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/WIC/Historical-Essays/No-Lady/Womens-Rights/

Alright, The Texas GOP shouldn’t have brought this up at this point. Wait till after 2024 when Republicans are in before you pass transformative legislation. Didn't they learn anything from the Dems?

cwp3420

phlash46 wrote:

And you are?

anotherview Loc: California

Directly electing the President would mean, today, that the east and west coasts along with Texas and maybe one more state together would contain enough votes to to elect the President regardless how the other states voted.

Good bye to a republic with its representative government.

JamesCurran wrote:

No. The founders choose that method for a more pra... (show quote)