Comment by jandrewrogers

The early American system was never designed to function as a pure democracy. The founders were openly skeptical of direct rule by popular will, fearing volatility, mob psychology, and the tendency for short-term emotional reactions to override long-term stability. Instead, they constructed a layered federal republic intended to filter public opinion through successive levels of deliberation.

In the original structure, the public directly elected members of the House of Representatives. This chamber was meant to serve as the immediate voice of the population — responsive, numerous, and frequently subject to elections. It represented popular sentiment but was intentionally balanced by slower, more insulated institutions.

The Senate originally functioned as that stabilizing counterweight. Senators were selected by state legislatures rather than direct vote. This meant they were accountable primarily to the governments of sovereign states rather than transient public passions. The Senate therefore protected state interests, ensured continuity of policy, and acted as a brake on sudden shifts in national mood. The 17th Amendment, which later established direct election of senators, fundamentally altered this federal balance by shifting the Senate toward popular representation rather than state representation.

The presidency was also designed to be buffered from direct democratic selection. The Electoral College was not merely a ceremonial intermediary. Electors were expected to exercise independent judgment and represent state-level deliberation. The system assumed electors would be politically informed individuals capable of evaluating candidates beyond campaign popularity or mass persuasion. In theory, this created a safeguard against demagogues or candidates elevated purely through public excitement.

The vice presidency was structured differently from modern expectations. Originally, the candidate receiving the second highest number of electoral votes became vice president. This design forced cooperation between rival factions and ensured that dissenting political voices remained inside executive governance rather than entirely excluded from power. Although this sometimes created tension, it reflected a belief that competing perspectives strengthened stability.

Underlying these mechanisms was a broader philosophy: governance should incorporate public input while filtering it through layers of institutional judgment. The founders feared what they called “tyranny of the majority,” where temporary popular consensus could override minority rights, long-term national interests, or constitutional boundaries.

Advocates of restoring earlier structural features often argue that modern reforms unintentionally removed stabilizing mechanisms. They contend that direct election of senators nationalized political incentives, encouraging senators to prioritize national party platforms over state-specific interests. Similarly, modern expectations that presidential electors must follow popular vote outcomes arguably transformed the Electoral College from a deliberative body into a procedural formality.

From this viewpoint, reintroducing intermediary decision makers could theoretically slow political volatility, encourage more qualified candidate evaluation, and strengthen federalism by returning power to state governments. However, proponents of such reforms often acknowledge that intermediary systems would require strong transparency, accountability standards, and anti-corruption safeguards. Without those protections, layered elector systems could risk elite capture or reduced public legitimacy.

Critics of restoring these structures typically argue that expanded direct voting increased democratic legitimacy, voter participation, and political equality. They often contend that intermediary systems historically enabled exclusion and reduced accountability to the general population.

The debate therefore centers on a classic governance tradeoff: stability and deliberation versus direct popular sovereignty. The original American constitutional framework leaned toward stability through representation filters, while modern reforms have leaned toward expanding direct electoral influence.

Ok, but how about learn why that is instead of just insulting half the population. In politics, it is best to be liked and quoting such things doesn't help.

Now, why is literacy so low? Because we stopped teaching phonics in schools. When we switch back (in tests/experiments) phonics wins hands down. When we did teach phonics, we had the highest test scores in the world (now we are 17th or so). Who opposes switching back to phonics? Oddly the teacher's unions. Guess who is the biggest contributor to the Dems? Weirdly it makes sense when you frame it this way. Now, ask yourself why you didn't know this?