Why didn't the American Revolution produce a more democratic society?

Question

Here is what I already know:

It produced a republic;

People vote on an official that represents you;

When you vote for a president, your vote is practically meaningless, since it is the electoral college that will put the president in.;

Is there anything else that you can think of, more importantly, specific information. I just needs brief outline of things anyone can think of. Thanks

Answer 1

You miss the American Genius for advancing the democratic tradition of elections and here at the start of the 21st century we have a chance to celebrate some American Democratic Innovations.

It was at the dawn of the 21st century that the old Richard J Daley Voter Turnout Protocol was superceeded by the High Technology Diebold Virtual Voter Turnout Protocol.

It is ironic that the the Richard Daly Protocol is rumored to be resting in Graceland Cemetery

http://www.graveyards.com/IL/Cook/graceland/

This park is filled with monuments to some of America's most prolific voters. These are people who not only heeded the call to vote early and often in each election, but managed to do so for decades after their death.

Good Luck

Answer 2

The founders of this nation had a justifiable fear of complete democracy. They knew that if the people had unrestrained power, that human nature would take over and they would soon bankrupt the country by voting themselves benefits and payouts. Google the term "bread and circuses" and you will understand more.

Just as they did with the government structure, adding checks and balances to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, they also added checks and balances to the system of selecting leadership.

They wrote the Constitution so that the House of Representatives would be elected directly by the people. The Senators would be selected by the states. And the President would be selected by the Electoral College, which is a group of people who MUST NOT be holding any other office. Thus there were three different selection systems.

Now, the system has been changed so that the Senators are also elected by the voters directly. The checks are less potent and the balances are severely off kilter. Let us hope, for the future of this nation, that the Electoral College, at least, survives the grumbling of those who want complete democracy so they can vote themselves a living instead of having to work for it.

Sometimes I think I may say too much. But telling the truth is much more important to me than my political future.

http://www.hendrixcampaign.com

Answer 3

Why is an Electoral vote meaningless?

It's purpose is to see that smaller, less populous states have a say in our government. Otherwise New York, Florida and California would decide all elections.

The Representative Republic allows for voting integrity, not only for the person, but for the state as well.

Democracy is mob rule.

The deep South was a democracy. Don't see a lot of "Persons of Color" in a hurry to resurrect that Democracy.

Answer 4

Democracy is actually mob rule, which the founding fathers found very dangerous, so they came up with a representative republic that follows the rule of law instead.

It's much fairer for everyone that way.

You're presidential vote is not meaningless, because it becomes part of your local community vote. You elect local representatives who pass on your wishes. If they don't do what you like they won't get your vote. It may seem difficult to understand, but it works pretty well.

Answer 5

"Will it reason a rebel, or a revolution?" Neither. Reconciliation is criminal and has been used previously without 'riots' or 'revolution' breaking out. what's incorrect with forcing a vote on the bill? "over 60% of the inhabitants is in comparison bill, has the government long previous mad with potential, or basically psychological?" No, you purely seem to no longer possibly understand what is going at here. examine what you published: "reconciliation,” the extremely arguable legislative technique via which a bill is presented in one among those way so as that it demands in undemanding terms 50 votes rather of 60 to proceed to a vote," So all "reconciliation" is, is the thank you to tension a sure/no vote on the bill.. somewhat than save it tied up wit ha filibuster so it relatively is on no account voted on... in actuality, one ought to actual make the case that the Filibuster is a greater robust abuse of potential... yet i've got in all possibility bored you sufficient already.

Answer 6

It was not considered that important to the early Americans because the Federal government was set up to have very little power except during insurgencies and in response to disasters, but then only with the express permission of the Governer of the state.

A lot of power has been added to the Federal Government since then but not much has changed in how Leaders are elected. Both parties are reluctant to update the process.

Answer 7

In a true democracy everyone gets to vote on everything. It was not practical at the time due to the size of the nation and the poor communications (roads) of the time.

We did have a very free nation however and for the next 200+ years our politicians have been slowly nibbling away on our rights.

Answer 8

When the USA was formed, the founders assumed that the States would always have a certain amount of power, and the the federal government would NEVER be as powerful as it has become.

That being said, you can imagine that voting for president didn't use to be as important as it is today, and probably was nowhere near as important as voting for your Mayor, your Governer, your Senators, etc.

Answer 9

They must have seen the Reign of Terror going on in France at the time, when mobs were guillotining anyone and everyone.

The electoral college is a good thing. We have never had a problem with tyrants, although Clinton was close.

Answer 10

we first had the articles of confederation, that didn't work out i dont know why but i probably should. it used to be president was chosen by popular vote...electoral college is relatively new and still doesn't make much sense...it makes it look like congress chooses the president...and if it's for state's right well, aren't state governments supposed to serve their residents???so shouldn't it be the residents (popular vote) that chooses the president? He's still the president no matter what state you're in...it seems that soverignty desolves very slowly...but it was near-perfect right after the articles of confederation...before polititions started prodding for loopholes