@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
We did choose the lesser of two evils. We chose Hillary. The founding ffathers fucked us over from beyond the grave with their benighted electoral college. Which also gave us the second worst of American presidents, w. bush in 2000. Which is why sop many states have passed a work-around to tie the results of the electoral college directly to the national winner of the popular vote.
Major problems exist with US democracy today, which were forecast by the founding fathers, who saw that if the people could control the government by majority voting, they could abuse government as an instrument to redistribute wealth/property.
Today politics has become mostly all about social-redistribution through growth-stimulus and selective government spending and regulation, which creates jobs and then entitles/protects certain categories of people who are privileged either through accreditation and/or through other identity classifications. This is not a covert/subtle/encoded critique of affirmative action, because that is just one aspect of it; since non-minority identified people can take advantage of classifications and protections gained and secured through institutional accreditation, licensing, and other government-regulations. The argument is that meritocracy can be fair and regulation devoted to ensuring safety, quality, environmental protection, etc. and maybe such regulations often do so, but they can also be tweaked in ways that procure and secure special interests and prevent some people from entering markets so that others can maintain privileged, if not monopolistic/oligopolistic, positions within those markets.
As such, it makes sense to have checks and balances against populism in democracy. In other words, it is not contrary to democracy to have institutions like the electoral college that block hostile takeover by the masses and their media/propaganda masters and paymasters, who seek to control government not in the interest of achieving a government of consent for all the people, but only for the sake of allowing majoritarian economic interests to subjugate wealth/property to the task of serving the greed/envy of the majority.
In short, there are fundamental issues of respect for the pursuit of life and liberty that necessitate protecting people against hostile economic coercion; even if the interests behind the coercion are favored by a majority of voters.