Originally Posted by
J Wolfsberger
Deliberately designed to provide for exactly that possibility, by people who understood that a majority could screw things up just as thoroughly as an unelected, tiny minority (at the time referred to as "nobility") and thought it prudent to design a system that forced the presidency to represent as much of the diversity of a large country as possible.
... real jerks elected on a party ticket who would never get into office any other way, since it makes it rather difficult to "split the ticket."
No. It was basically designed by and for people who embraced the ideas of self determination and limited government and rejected a great deal of arrogant, hereditary "elitism" found in Europe then and now. (Then = aristocracy, now = progressive elite, both = [self snip to avoid the ire of moderators]) Which is why our government, when working properly, is structured around the exact "dysfunction" quite a few people are complaining of today. The semantic content of that complaining is: "the system is working but we aren't getting our way."
I wouldn't expect you to understand the why's of our culture and government. But when criticizing what you don't understand, keep in mind that this country was founded and built by people who wanted to discard much of what they left behind. That includes political structures designed and intended then, as now, to entrench self appointed elites. We aren't perfect, we get things wrong, and sometimes we take to long to recognize and fix our mistakes, but for all that we do a better job than most other countries, most of the time.
Bookmarks