3 ms·

Alternatively: the EC compromise reflected the personal self-interest of Hamilton/Madison/Jay, just like your citation of them reflects your personal partisan l

• salawat 6y ago
  I was around in 2012 actually. I also did not understand fully the intricacies of the system as formulated by the Founders. Nor did I appreciate the usurpation of the executive function of an elector in measuring the character of a candidate by the various States and the two National political parties. Fortunately, I was unsatisfied with that state of affairs, and read into the history and writings of the time, so that I could have a better chance of understanding what it was the Founders saw and hoped would carry to the modern day. The understanding I got out of it, was that over the last 200 years is that we've struck a balance between opening up sufferage, but rewriting fundamental abstractions such that the pre-eminence of only two political collectives can be be ontologically considered, ensuring that yet another check the Founders were counting on, Regional Factionalism would disappear as a mitigating factor to prevent the development of a "National Political Elite", much to the dismay of Hamilton and Madison. So, yeah thanks for assuming a modern political caricature is enough to represent the full nuance of my position on a highly argued, oft misunderstood, and underappreciated topic on the mechanics, merits, and warts of the American political system. Really appreciate it.