[Skybird]

Between how it once may have been meant by its crators, and the results it indeed creates in actual outcome, there obviously lies a whole galaxy. Its like i said i other conetxts before: the self-understanding of the (historical) US and the way it really is, is immense nowadays, or may I say: reality diverts from ideal more and more.

The article I posted said it already in the very second apragraph, at the end: "What was more astonishing, however, than the fact that the US constitution did not yield anything to it, was how long it took for the open question to finally be settled in a constitutional amendment. That was in 1967, 126 years after Harrison's death. Which says a lot about the willingness of Americans to reform when it comes to constitution and democracy." You can see this in other debates related to Constitution and Amendments as well, especially relating firearms.

I assess this eleciton reality on the gorpund of what is claimed that it should be. Whether I would agree with the meaningfulness and reasonability of how it ic claimed it should be, is something completely diffrent. My problem is the electorate itself, its fitness to handle responsibly any general, undiscriminatory right to vote. The best ideal helps nothing if there is a lack in reason to realise it. This is the fundament that critics like Jason Brennan found their broadsides against modenr understanding of dmeocracy and majority election on. In his words, democracy (modern) needs Vulcans to function, but what you have is a majority of Hobbits that allow a minority of Orcs to mob, intimidate, manipulate them, all the tiem while the Hiobbis do not care for anythign more than just watering the flowers in their garden without looking beyond the garden fence anyway.

At the very root of the problem with modern democracy is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what democracy actually really is. But I excplained the ancient Greek undersdtanding of it often enough already. Its suffice to remind of that modern democracy has nothing to do with what the old Greeks understood to be "democracy". Nothing. Our "democracy" was their oligarchic/ochlocratic tyranny. We use a more modern, shorter term for that today. We simply call it "socialism": the rule of the party and its lobbies and business supporters (oligarchy), and expropriation and redistribution of wealth (ochlocracy).


Both are at work in the growing distortion of the American (and European!) election systems as well.