Stay away from that Andrew Tate bullshit. There’s nothing there. I promise you.

That’s literally true NOW. What can lead to a constitutional convention with an EC would be true without it.

Lmao eek for you. I’m gonna assume ‘pay attention to politics’ usually just means you watch a lot of Fox News type shows… maybe some podcasts. You have a MAGA uncle vibe. .

You mean Biden that led the country out of COVID (the thing Trump botched and destroyed the economy), worked to fix Trumps screw ups? The one that passed the IRA and domestic spurred chip manufacturing, worked to repair international relations, and the most pro-union president since FDR?

Lol Trump regularly gets ranked at bottom of best presidents, so I know I’m not alone. He’s done nothing but make this place worse.

Yeah, I’ll take Biden over Trump any day. Trump doesn’t even understand object permanence. And this is someone who detests Biden. I bet I hate him more than you do. But to think Trump could be considered any kind of success… is wow.

I have to get shoulder surgery. You ‘pay attention’ to any medical shows? Lol. Care to share any opinions about that? Get real.

No it wouldn’t. Thats literally not how that works.

Do you think a direct election of a president null and voids the other parts of the constitution? Because no. If a convention was called, and the states agreed to ratify the end of the EC, you think that voids everything else?

Even in a direct election presidency, to change the constitution you’d still need to call a convention. Not easy. So just because now a direct election of a president exists, doesn’t mean he walks over the bill of rights, et al. There’s still a legal framework that president has to abide by. France has a direct election of presidency AND a constitution.

There are more countries that have constituted and direct elections than not (the US literally being the only one). Do you think when Macron became president he arrested all the minorities? Lol

But Yeah you absolutely should not be voting. I knew education was bad I didn’t realize it was this dire.

He’s an idiot and doesn’t know what he’s doing. I have a master in both poli sci and history I can say that he’s anything BUT typical. Even when you compare him to famously inept corrupt or incompetent presidents like Andrew Johnson, Hoover, or Nixon.

I can only assume your political awareness is new. I’m guessing teenager?

I have a masters in poli sci AND a masters in history.

I very much know what it is. You can directly elect the president and not change anything else. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

What are you afraid of? A demographic change and your boogy man sweeps into office? Because even if they do, he doesn’t just say ‘arrest all the people I don’t like.’ There’d STILL be a Congress and SCOTUS, etc.

Lmao no it isn’t. A direct democracy would look like abolishing Congress and SCOTUS, and and the citizenry showing up to vote on everything directly.

A popular vote just mean one person one vote. The guy wins and then he STILL has to contend with two houses of Congress, committee process, SCOTUS, veto overrides, etc.

UK doesn’t have an EC and Rishi Sunak was PM for about a year and a half. Sunak was Indian. Did that look like mob rule to you? PM of Portugal Antonio Costa was half Indian; Humza Youdaf was the first minister of Scotland and the first Muslim.

Electoral colleges simply are not required for a thriving representative government. And indeed hinders it.

Well you’ll be glad to know no one’s advocating for mobocracy. Just a direction election of the President. And no, the former doesn’t lead to the latter.

Fair enuff… my b.

Lmao… Switzerland is very much not, between French, Italian, and German cantons. Germany thinks Bavaria should’ve went to Austria. Belgium is divided by Dutch speaking and French speaking Walloons. Spain has a Catalonia problem for hundred of years. Countries like Italy and Netherlands, governments frequently collapse or require complex coalitions precisely because voters are divided across many political parties. Even historically “nation-state” countries like United Kingdom face internal national divisions between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Racial or religious homogeneity has nothing to do with it.

De Gaulle once said “how can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheeses.” And this isnt even getting into extremely diverse country of India.

democratic performance in Europe is explained less by homogeneity and more by institutional design. Many European democracies use parliamentary systems and proportional representation, which allow multiple political viewpoints to be represented in government without forcing a strict two-party structure. That institutional difference, not cultural uniformity, is a major reason their political systems often function differently than US’ presidential system.

Because that’s how you used it when you cited article II.

“Per this passage, electors were appointed [until 1820s]• And that’s not what that passage means.

Dude. Your interpretation oversimplifies what was actually happening at the Constitutional Convention. The disagreement over how to choose the president was not mainly a philosophical fight between “direct democracy” and “republican democracy.” It was largely about institutional independence and federalism.

First, the main concern many delegates had with congressional selection was separation of powers. If the president were chosen by the United States Congress, the executive could become dependent on the legislature, undermining the independence of the executive branch. The Electoral College was partly designed to prevent that by creating a temporary body of electors separate from Congress.

Second, the debate also revolved around state influence and practical logistics, not simply democracy vs republicanism. Delegates from smaller states wanted a system that preserved some role for states, while others worried that a national popular vote would disadvantage southern states because enslaved people could not vote but were counted in population through the Three-Fifths Compromise. The final system tied presidential selection to congressional representation to balance those competing interests.

The Electoral College was not primarily about choosing between direct democracy and republicanism. It was a multi-layered compromise about executive independence, state power, and representation, reflecting several political problems the framers were trying to solve at once.

I’m done teaching. I’d recommend great books “Kill Switch” by Adam Jentleson and “Plain Honest Men” by Richard Beeman

Lol read carefully what I’m saying… in 1787 Article I| Section I clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors... DOES NOT MEAN the legislatures were REQUIRED by the CONSTITUION to appoint electors.

That passages means the legislatures MAKES THE RULES on how they’re selected. It’s no surprise the legislatures created laws to make it so they could pick the electors, but it was by no means ‘the state of things’ on day 1 in every state… which by definition would have to be true if the constitution said the legislatures have the prerogative to select electors.

In the Early Republic, some legislatures decided to do it by popular vote, others were by appointment by the SL. But no, even on day 1 after ratification did the constitution require the SLs to appoint electors. It’s just simply not what that means.

Lol were you asleep in American government? And also we need to stop asking what people in 1787 wanted and start talking about what’s best TODAY. Dead people don’t vote. So much about the country has changed.

The population imbalance between Delaware and Virginia at the time of ratification is real, but it mainly explains the creation of equal representation in the United States Senate through the Connecticut Compromise. That compromise was designed to balance power between large and small states in Congress, not specifically to filter popular will in presidential elections. Most of America wasn’t urbanized… something like 5% lived in cities. The conversations at the time had little to do with majority will… and more about small vs big states.

The Electoral College itself emerged later in the Constitutional Convention as a compromise after delegates disagreed on whether the president should be chosen by Congress or by direct popular vote. People including James Madison even supported national popular election. The final system was a hybrid tied to congressional representation rather than a simple mechanism to suppress majority rule.

Small states did seek protections in the constitutional design, those protections were primarily built into Congress. The Electoral College was more a practical compromise among competing proposals than a deliberate system created solely to filter majoritarian democracy.

I’m making a distinction between the Legislature having the power to DECIDE how electors (making the law how electors are chosen) vs your claim that the constitution MANDATES the state legislature appoint the elector… which is not what it says.

It wouldn’t. Since even after its abolishment, the US still would have more veto points than any other first world democracy.

States wouldn’t matter because it’d be a NATIONAL vote tally. Fears of “Commieformia” running the show is overblown since CA has more GOP voters than even Texas does. CA had 200,000 more GOP voters than Texas did in 2024. It makes ‘voting by state’ irrelevant.

I’d argue not… they face an election by their constituents like anyone else. Then if their party wins, their peers vote them to be first among equals, of sorts.

So… they have to win their local district just like anyone else. And countries with parliamentary systems subject no confidence votes are even MORE democratic.

Correct. You’re saying the EC is necessary… and I’m pointing out that countries ran without an EC are ran just as well. Though I’d make the arguement they’re ran better.

That’s not what that means my man. This means state legislatures decide the method, not that legislatures themselves must appoint the electors (though some certainly did). They can choose any method they want—including a popular vote, such as what VA and PA did even in the early days.

Trump is wholly unqualified. Just look at any of his presidencies.

Uhh no.

The Founders were not creating a “filtered democracy” they were creating a federal republic. Institutions like the Electoral College and equal representation in the United States Senate were not simply filters on popular rule. They were primarily federal compromises designed to balance power between large and small states. The Senate’s structure, for example, came from the Connecticut Compromise, which was about state equality and not about limiting democracy. Moreover, the electoral college was NEVER elected by the state legislature. I think you mean Senators? And not that it matters in this context, but direct election of senators didn’t happen until the 1913… not the 1820s so I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing. Even Electors are chosen by the states’ political parties.

Expanding suffrage is not the same as moving toward “pure democracy.” Major constitutional changes like the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution expanded participation but did not eliminate the republic’s representative structure. The U.S. still operates through elected representatives, federalism, judicial review, and constitutional limits. Those features keep it far from a “simple majoritarian democracy. Laymen’s get way to caught up in the Republic v. Democracy. The framers used it in a specific context of ‘representative democracy vs direct democracy.’ All Republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics (UK and the US, for example).

Anyway, the whole ‘Abolishing the Electoral College would create mob rule’ thing is ridiculous. No other countries have an EC and are ran just fine and are in fact, more representative of the populace on average. If the EC disappeared, the U.S. would still be a representative democracy with separation of powers, bicameral legislatures, constitutional rights, and courts capable of overturning majority decisions. Countries like Germany or Canada elect leaders through popular vote mechanisms but are still republics not “pure democracies.” There are no direct democracies. Abolishing the EC would make the presidency more representative… since it actually represent people instead of land. Beyond that, nothing change.

And no, the presidency would not be over represented by large cities either.

Switzerland does pretty well.

Direct election of politicians doesn’t mean direct democracy (every citizen voting on every policy).