How do you square "little difference" with "sad day"? How did the amendments passed in 1913 (giving Congress the power to levy and income tax, and normalizing the election of Senators, I say normalizing, as it was a fairly widespread practice prior to 1913, source) result in the United States no longer having "a constitutionally limited government of the representative type"? Assuming you can show this, how would having direct elections for the office of President make it harder to return to having such a government?

Once a government gains power, it is very hard to get the government to give power up. In our country, and most others, a revolution is required - thus the reason for the second amendment. It was expected that we would need another revolution in a few years to get rid of the new government.
The tax changes allowed a progressive tax structure. One were unequal tax rates were allowed. It is the reason the IRS was created and in order to get it passed the people, a LOW TAX RATE was promised. These rates only lasted a few years and the county was paying rates higher than the ones we pay today. Given the money, the government expanded to the point where the country couldn't provide enough money to pay for it.
While the selection of Senators may have needed improvement, passing the vote to the people is another step toward Mob Rule. An effort should have been made to find another solution to the problem, however the Progressive government model is a dictatorship with oversight so Mob Rule worked for them.
So much has already been lost before I was born that any loss of the Republic on my watch is a sad day.

---

How do you square "little difference" with "sad day"? How did the amendments passed in 1913 (giving Congress the power to levy and income tax, and normalizing the election of Senators, I say normalizing, as it was a fairly widespread practice prior to 1913, source) result in the United States no longer having "a constitutionally limited government of the representative type"? Assuming you can show this, how would having direct elections for the office of President make it harder to return to having such a government?

Once a government gains power, it is very hard to get the government to give power up. In our country, and most others, a revolution is required - thus the reason for the second amendment. It was expected that we would need another revolution in a few years to get rid of the new government.
The tax changes allowed a progressive tax structure. One were unequal tax rates were allowed. It is the reason the IRS was created and in order to get it passed the people, a LOW TAX RATE was promised. These rates only lasted a few years and the county was paying rates higher than the ones we pay today. Given the money, the government expanded to the point where the country couldn't provide enough money to pay for it.
While the selection of Senators may have needed improvement, passing the vote to the people is another step toward Mob Rule. An effort should have been made to find another solution to the problem, however the Progressive government model is a dictatorship with oversight so Mob Rule worked for them.
So much has already been lost before I was born that any loss of the Republic on my watch is a sad day.

You do realize the Electoral College was established as part of the 3/5's compromise (to provide the slave holding states a greater voice in the outcome of elections) and nothing to do with protections from mob rule don't you?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You do realize the Electoral College was established as part of the 3/5's compromise (to provide the slave holding states a greater voice in the outcome of elections) and nothing to do with protections from mob rule don't you?

Federalist Papers 68 Hamilton

---

the Project Gutenberg has 40000 free ebooks, the federalist papers are there and there free.

---

the Project Gutenberg has 40000 free ebooks, the federalist papers are there and there free.

I am not a big Ebook user but one should be warned that the originals had spelling issues and references that one may not be aware of today. A printed copy might have advantages.

---

You do realize the Electoral College was established as part of the 3/5's compromise (to provide the slave holding states a greater voice in the outcome of elections) and nothing to do with protections from mob rule don't you?

Federalist Papers 68 Hamilton

Which is a nice justification after the fact of a result of the 3/5s compromise, though does nothing to alter the basis for the existence of the Electoral College:

The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections

Records of the Federal Convention

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

how would having direct elections for the office of President make it harder to return to having such a government?

This last election demonstrated it.

Guy, your response does not answer any of the questions I asked Dena. Further, your response is nonsensical, as there were no direct elections for the office of President in the last election.

Well, since I don't have the words or the history available to me to describe the original meaning of "tyranny of the majority" any more, I guess my answer would seem nonsensical.

Your answer was nonsensical for the reason given. How can the last election (which did not have direct elections for the office of President) demonstrate anything regarding the "constitutionally limited government of the representative type" status of the United States government should direct elections for that office be introduced?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You do realize the Electoral College was established as part of the 3/5's compromise (to provide the slave holding states a greater voice in the outcome of elections) and nothing to do with protections from mob rule don't you?

Federalist Papers 68 Hamilton

Which is a nice justification after the fact of a result of the 3/5s compromise, though does nothing to alter the basis for the existence of the Electoral College:

The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections

Records of the Federal Convention

The Federalist Papers were the products of Hamilton, Madison and Jay and are the standard to understand the meaning of the Constitution. While it may have helped make the 3/5 compromise possible, it was also a way to make one leg of the Republic. Don't forget that The Federalist Papers were written after the constitution was written so they include the final arguments that went into the writing of the constitution.

---

You do realize the Electoral College was established as part of the 3/5's compromise (to provide the slave holding states a greater voice in the outcome of elections) and nothing to do with protections from mob rule don't you?

Federalist Papers 68 Hamilton

Which is a nice justification after the fact of a result of the 3/5s compromise, though does nothing to alter the basis for the existence of the Electoral College:

The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections

Records of the Federal Convention

The Federalist Papers were the products of Hamilton, Madison and Jay and are the standard to understand the meaning of the Constitution. While it may have helped make the 3/5 compromise possible, it was also a way to make one leg of the Republic. Don't forget that The Federalist Papers were written after the constitution was written so they include the final arguments that went into the writing of the constitution.

The Federalist Papers were intended to promote the adoption of the US Constitution, to that end they are a serialized commercial. The convention was where the arguments took place, and, as can be seen from the quote provided, the Electoral College was, at least in part, a product of the 3/5s compromise.

As for protection from mob rule, in FP 10, Madison suggested this would be achieved by having representatives:

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
[...]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

How far we have fallen. The duties of the Senate can't be handled by any old person elected off the street. A senator needs more of a job interview than a simple election. Federalist paper 64

---

How far we have fallen. The duties of the Senate can't be handled by any old person elected off the street. A senator needs more of a job interview than a simple election. Federalist paper 64

Indeed, even women are permitted to hold the office of Senator these days, something that would no doubt have shocked many of the Founding Fathers:

As the select assemblies for choosing the President, as well as the State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

How far we have fallen. The duties of the Senate can't be handled by any old person elected off the street. A senator needs more of a job interview than a simple election. Federalist paper 64

Indeed, even women are permitted to hold the office of Senator these days, something that would no doubt have shocked many of the Founding Fathers:

As the select assemblies for choosing the President, as well as the State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence.

And on Obama Care from Nancy Pelosi "We have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it!". That doesn't sound like leader material to me.
And then in the Senate, the only way to get it though was to buy the vote of three Senators with favors.

---

How far we have fallen. The duties of the Senate can't be handled by any old person elected off the street. A senator needs more of a job interview than a simple election. Federalist paper 64

Indeed, even women are permitted to hold the office of Senator these days, something that would no doubt have shocked many of the Founding Fathers:

As the select assemblies for choosing the President, as well as the State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence.

And on Obama Care from Nancy Pelosi "We have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it!". That doesn't sound like leader material to me.
And then in the Senate, the only way to get it though was to buy the vote of three Senators with favors.

Which has what to do with direct elections for President?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

How far we have fallen. The duties of the Senate can't be handled by any old person elected off the street. A senator needs more of a job interview than a simple election. Federalist paper 64

Indeed, even women are permitted to hold the office of Senator these days, something that would no doubt have shocked many of the Founding Fathers:

As the select assemblies for choosing the President, as well as the State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence.

And on Obama Care from Nancy Pelosi "We have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it!". That doesn't sound like leader material to me.
And then in the Senate, the only way to get it though was to buy the vote of three Senators with favors.

Which has what to do with direct elections for President?

You want somebody running the country that never held a real job in their life? With Obama's resume I wouldn't trust him to do anything till I tested him and made sure he had the ability to do the job right. I am sure he is a nice enough guy but the few things he has done right took far longer than they should have.

---

How far we have fallen. The duties of the Senate can't be handled by any old person elected off the street. A senator needs more of a job interview than a simple election. Federalist paper 64

Indeed, even women are permitted to hold the office of Senator these days, something that would no doubt have shocked many of the Founding Fathers:

As the select assemblies for choosing the President, as well as the State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence.

And on Obama Care from Nancy Pelosi "We have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it!". That doesn't sound like leader material to me.
And then in the Senate, the only way to get it though was to buy the vote of three Senators with favors.

Which has what to do with direct elections for President?

You want somebody running the country that never held a real job in their life? With Obama's resume I wouldn't trust him to do anything till I tested him and made sure he had the ability to do the job right. I am sure he is a nice enough guy but the few things he has done right took far longer than they should have.

Took him less than 3 years to have OBL killed, the guy before him didn't manage that in over 6 years. As a resident of NYC I call that a result.

Still, the incumbent was elected into office by the Electoral College, and, presumably, will be voted into office again when the college next meets. His effectiveness as officeholder has little bearing on the subject at hand.

Earlier you said:

While the selection of Senators may have needed improvement, passing the vote to the people is another step toward Mob Rule. An effort should have been made to find another solution to the problem, however the Progressive government model is a dictatorship with oversight so Mob Rule worked for them.

Direct elections for Senators was raised over 80 years before Amendment 17 was passed. Do you believe that other solutions were not explored and found wanting during this time? If not, why not? Why do you believe that selection of Senators by State legislatures was an effective protection from mob rule?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Took him less than 3 years to have OBL killed, the guy before him didn't manage that in over 6 years. As a resident of NYC I call that a result.

Might ask why. Could it be that for about 8 years there was valuable intelligence being obtained via elint taps on OBL and perhaps it dried up? We won't know for several decades until it is declassified. The one thing that pisses me about the op was we let the enemy get a good look at a stealth helicopter. Now why wasn't it properly destroyed? Rank amateur operation? Or did someone decide that politically it was more important to kill one man than protect the troops from disclosure to the enemy of military secrets? Did they forget to have an armed RQ-170 or predator overhead to clean up any mess? A couple of hellfires into the wreck would have made a huge difference.

---

How can the last election (which did not have direct elections for the office of President) demonstrate anything regarding the "constitutionally limited government of the representative type" status of the United States government should direct elections for that office be introduced?

I could give you a long U.S. history lesson on the last 110 years, but you'd easily pick it apart, parse words, ask for further clarification about some minutia, ask me about the changing definitions of words, find small gaps in cause/effect, and any other number of things that would eventually get me frustrated and give up, thus giving you the illusion that you've defeated me.

But I won't bother.

Besides, we've already gone over the cliff. You've won. What is it now? You want to gloat or something?

Not sure why a history lesson would be needed, the mechanics of selecting delegates to the Electoral College in the last Presidential election were similar to those of the previous one, the one before it, etc. Though if a history lesson is required in Presidential elections going all the way back to 1872 (or 1836 save for South Carolina) Electoral College delegates were selected by popular vote. Even in the first election under the current constitution (1789), 6 of the 13 states chose their delegates by popular vote.

The question was not intended to defeat or frustrate you, it was an invitation for you to explain what you meant, instead of an explanation you've resorted to hand waving.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...