Exactly on what point do you deny one person, one vote?
The electoral college had several historical rationalizations behind it. History.com lists them as follows. The ones that remain pertinent today are in boldface.
It [the electoral college] sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation.
No serious person would question the fact that urban voters have different priorities than rural voters; all you have to do is look at a blue/red precinct map of the US 2016 election and you see that our division as a people is not by state, but by city vs rural, with the true battlegrounds being in the suburbs and exurbs. We are a very large (geographically and by population) country, and the loss of the electoral college would provide serious risk of tyranny of the majority, where the priorities of the urban voter were forced upon the entire population. Further, we all still need to eat, and the production of foodstuffs is essentially the responsibility of the rural voter. Hence, a mechanism to insure that that voters are not penalized by lower population density (cornfields take up space but don’t vote) is germane.
Admittedly the framers of the constitution did not include anyone but white, males and for census purposes only, semi-human (slaves) people were counted as percentage.
Why are you raising this? This is a digression off the main topic; the 3/5 rule debate was not related to the electoral college.
We are in a critical stage of the destruction of our planet’s ability to support our species and related life forms. I think it is very logical to require a minimum of knowledge on the universe, our planet, all life forms, and current scientific understanding of the interrelationship of those things in order to qualify to even run for public office.
70% of the US population lacks a four year college degree; 70% of the population is religious. There’s a very large overlapping Venn diagram there, but suffice to say that if this sentiment as expressed were ever codified into law, you’d have a case for putting public office out of reach for somewhere between 80% and 90% of the population.
Count me out, and the antidemocratic nature of such a proposal is not the only reason why. It’s a poll tax by another name; the tax is the tuition paid for the college degree, combined with an adherence to atheism; this eliminates from contention political candidates that the uneducated religious riffraff might want to vote for, eh?
There are other reasons as well, but let’s not digress.
I’m glad to see that you figured out that I was suggesting an interim government to correct the current mess and give this place a last, desperate hope to survive.
You base your proposal on the opinion (not fact, but opinion) that there’s some sort of “current mess” which is so horrible it can’t be allowed to continue. I disagree. Outside of the social media use, this is looking like a rather garden-variety conservative administration, in the way it’s turning out. I have to thus assume that you’d be reacting the same to ANY conservative administration, even if the president was the rather vanilla Scott Walker. Thus, I think you have a rather paranoid view, which amuses me, because you want to appoint the Chicken Littles to figure out how to keep the sky from falling. :-).
This is where you cross the line into revolutionary change. Oh, wait! This is July 4th. Declaration of Independence, “. . .certain truths become self-evident . . .” Wow, bunch of just anybodies that decided to make a serious change under new circumstances and natural law.
Oh, please. You’re trying to compare 1776, which was a province breaking away from its tyrannical ruler, to overthrowing the democratically elected government of the people? I suggest you rethink that one. You have a closer analogy in Lenin, the Ayatollah, and Castro; King George doesn’t work.
Yes, this is a futile hope. If you really want to believe in the sky pixie (that’s a little cuter than the flying spaghetti monster) you certainly can.
And I intend to. But I will also make the point that “freedom of religion”, which you clearly would like to do away with, depends not only on the right to believe (impossible to take that away, anyway) but the right to live one’s life according to the precepts of one’s religion. IOW, if the right to run for public office for the religious is legislated away, then it cannot be said that the country has “freedom of religion” or that the country is even ostensibly “free”, because it denies the people their conscience.
And, yes, this is still too far away for this country to even try but I think it is clearly understood that people who are troubled by voices and visions are not good choices for positions of authority.
If it is clearly understood, then simply stop electing them. See how that works? No revolution required. You can turn in your black mask and uniform.
One has to note here that the House Minority Leader is an observant Catholic, and one of the “party leaders” on the Dem side, by acclimation, (Biden) is an observant Catholic, and the 2016 Democrat candidate for president, as it has been noted for the last 25 years if you care to look, is a bible carrying observant Protestant.
Ergo, I think it is not as “clearly understood” as you seem to believe. Perhaps you’re making a statement of faith rather than of reality. :-)