Tigerman wrote:Homey wrote:I would personally welcome a move to the popular vote.
I refer you to Mr. Madison's brilliant argument against the same.
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.
Ha, ha, ha. You realize, I hope, that the "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" James Madison is referring to as the cornerstone of republicanism is the U.S. Congress. Brilliant though Madison's argument may have been in 1787 I don't think anyone in their right mind would refer to any U.S. Congress in recent history as being even remotely like a body of "citizens, whose wisdom . . . patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial consideratons".
The fatal flaw in Madison's argument for government by middle man is that he failed to foresee an age in which those middle men (and women) discovered that lobbyists and special interests were willing to pay good money for their souls after which point Congress became nothing more than a parliament of whores on sale to the highest bidder.