Expat Forum For People Moving Overseas And Living Abroad banner

Voting in a true democracy

8K views 67 replies 15 participants last post by  lagoloo 
#1 ·
Here's my idea of what a voting model could be in a true democracy:

No electoral college, for starters. Why should one person's vote count more than another's just because of where in the country they live? I realize it once made some sort of sense, but it seems absurd.

In my model, every citizen gets one vote. Every vote counts equally. You can use that vote to cast a yes OR no vote. If you cast a no vote for a candidate, that cancels out one of that candidate's yes votes.

There were people in this last US election who voted for a candidate they didn't like because they disliked the alternative even more. This happens in all elections, but I think this last election was an extreme example. I know people who voted for an independent, because they were confident that Trump would never get in, and now regret having basically thrown away their vote. And these were lifelong Republicans, who were horrified and embarrassed by their party's candidate. There were also people who voted for Trump simply because they couldn't stand and didn't trust Hillary.

So let's say you voted for Hillary because you couldn't stand Trump. You didn't like Hillary one bit either, but you REALLY didn't want Trump to win. In my model, instead of feeling you had to vote for Hillary so Trump wouldn't get in (or not voting at all because you were disgusted with the choices), you could have cast a NO vote against Trump.

When the election results came in, with every yes and no vote being counted, this would give a quite accurate reflection of how the citizenry is thinking and feeling. More people would vote- not everyone who doesn't vote is simply apathetic or non-political- sometimes they just can't stomach the choices. And no one would feel they had to vote for a politician they actually didn't support.

Comments?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Norman Matoon Thomas was a leading socialist and a six time candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He said this in a 1944 speech, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing that it happened." He went on to say, "I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist party, the Democratic party has adopted our platform."

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, the electoral college rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
 
#35 · (Edited)
Norman Matoon Thomas was a leading socialist and a six time candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He said this in a 1944 speech, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism.
He was right, not unless it's pushed as something else. Just 12 years later Eisenhower authored the biggest socialist infrastructure project ever, the Interstate Highway _______* system. He had to fill in the blank with "and Defense", because Ike was nobody's idea of a socialist. Didn't matter. It was and is a socialist project not matter how it was wrapped, and so is the military, although on the right socialism is nothing more than the fabled welfare queen who buys a new Cadillac every year. I'd say it's almost anything performed by the government and financed by public money (taxes) to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, and promote the general Welfare. The military, streets, highways, cops, firefighters, courts, jails, schools. All that "free" stuff that everyone loves.
 
#3 ·
Can anyone explain why the left opposes voter ID so badly? It's not that "the poor can't afford an ID", that is baloney and everyone knows it. Even India has voter ID issued when they turn 18. If we can afford cell phones for the poor, we can provide an ID. We all know why democrats oppose voter ID and that is another reason why the popular vote is a poor choice.

A majority of votes means nothing if millions of illegal aliens, non citizens are voting. Hopefully with enough arm twisting and withholding of things the left wants, voter ID will be a requirement, as it should, during this administration. If the left wants DACA, demand voter ID, it's not unreasonable. If you want majority rule the majority should be legal citizens of the United States.
 
#4 ·
I'm thinking about posting this comment on Facebook just to see how many "likes" are laughing ones.

State issued IDs are often located in areas that are difficult to access by people without transportation. In many states, many of those places were closed, thus not only hard to get to, but hard to find. A voter registration card is a valid ID since the number of violations of voting borders on insignificant. Sounds like you get your statistics from Fox or Breitbart.
 
#5 · (Edited)
No electoral college, for starters. Why should one person's vote count more than another's just because of where in the country they live? I realize it once made some sort of sense, but it seems absurd.
Almost all the states have a winner-take-all approach to awarding electoral college votes. Almost.

One of the exceptions is Nebraska. I really like how they do it. They have 5 votes. Two of the votes go to the overall state majority winner. The state has 3 congressional districts. The remaining 3 votes are awarded to the majority vote winner in each district.

In 2016 in Nebraska, Trump got all 5, because he won all over the state very comfortably.

But if this approach was applied in other states, you'd have had some splitting. States like Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (all were Trump) would undoubtedly have had some splitting because the voting was so very close. Minnesota and Virginia (which went Clinton) probably would have seen some splitting as well.

If all states applied a splitting system in 2016, would the voting result have changed? I think its safe to say it would not have been landslide 306-232 margin at the electoral college level. A Clinton victory? Not sure.

I do think the concern about factions is real (Zorro's post), and therefore I like the electoral college. It reduces the ability of nuthead block voters to steer the outcome. If you know the history of prohibition in the US (pro prohibition groups were very active in impacting elections) you know this is a real fear.
 
#7 ·
How about this? The government provides transportation to the local office and pays for the ID once citizenship is established with no cost at all. Refusal to comply makes one ineligible to vote. Would anyone object to this?
 
#8 · (Edited)
I'm all in favor of solid voter ID, even though I think that claiming "millions" of illegals voted for Hillary is not only unprovable (better believe they'd prove it if they could) but plain unreasonable.

I am one of the voters who checked the ballot for Hillary only because I loathe everything that Trump stands for, even though his "stands" on anything have yielded to political expediency. Not too long ago, any whiff of scandal could ruin a politician's credibility. Trump is solidly coated with Teflon. Even the most devoted Evangelical Christians are able to somehow convince themselves to continue supporting him.

On another point of contention: quoting the founding fathers as having any relevance in today's world is questionable, to say the least. In their time, slavery was not only legal, it was a major commercial operation from which many of them directly benefited. Then there's the concept of only white landowners should be allowed to vote. Last, but not least, at least half the population (women) had no vote.

Again, about their concepts and today's world: I doubt any of them would have envisioned a population of non-military persons insisting the that 2nd amendment gave them the right to own the kind of armament we see now.

On the subject of "Socialism": It's a bit difficult to come up with a discussion on that subject when we're talking about what the news reports as a country where 1% if the population owns 43% of the wealth. This phenomenon seems to have developed in less than a century. It's obvious where the power lies, and it's not with "the people".
 
#11 ·
"illegal" bashing
Just in the past couple of days (another thread), Zorro was posting about young people in Mx joining the military, as a way out of the cycle of poverty.

Seemingly, acknowledging that there is a segment of the population here in Mx ... of significant size ... who have it quite tough.

But when these same people get into the US, and overwhelmingly accept jobs where the wage level and working conditions are appalling to most legal US residents - suddenly they are not people anymore, they are a problem - oh those horrible non-citizens, they are destroying everything!

Also, it must be said that for someone to wrap themselves in far right stars and stripes, after deciding to ditch living in the US for Mexico, and marry a Mexican woman no less, seems a bit odd.
 
#10 ·
Your point is well taken. The trouble with standing on a virtual podium and spouting any kind of party line is that the nature of the audience needs to be taken into consideration and one should consider whether its a waste of time.
There's not a chance of selling it to many of us.

I'd much rather enter into a discussion of your original topic.
 
#12 · (Edited)
There are probably as many reasons people move to Mexico as there are expats. Slight differences each time. Why we marry a person usually involves irrational matters such as falling in love. Good enough reason for anyone, however.

Zorro went into considerable detail about young and poor Mexicans joining the military. There's the simple truth that in nearly all countries, joining the military service is a very common solution for young people who are poor and lack prospects. Nothing new. The Scots and Irish did so way back when and were probably the majority of the forces in far flung British colonies. The U.S. military service represents an opportunity to many young people there.

One could argue that the only objection to "illegals" is that they are illegal. That does not make them bad people. Chances are they came to improve their and/or their families' circumstances.
The opportunities for gaining citizenship from that point are not great. This could be changed, but the government has not done it, even though everyone is aware that this labor force is needed, especially for the jobs most people don't want to do. Motive? Go figure.

I have noticed that, no matter what kind of counter argument is put forth to Zorro, a direct answer is seldom offered. Usually, the subject is changed. I suppose you could say we are wasting our time....but we persist. Are we hopeless? Maybe.
 
#13 ·
One could argue that the only objection to "illegals" is that they are illegal.

Chances are they came to improve their and/or their families' circumstances.
I perceive there is an effort to demonize illegals by manufacturing "news" stories of impacts on elections and the stealing of jobs.

Because if you take them at face value ... in the US to work hard, make some money, live peacefully, help family back home ... its hard to justify spending billions to solve "the problem."
 
#15 · (Edited)
Whenever Americans go off on how the "illegals" are taking their jobs, I ask them if they have been eagerly awaiting a job opening crawling around on their hands and knees in the hot sun picking tomatoes or scrubbing out other people's toilets. They usually go silent.

I have a friend who labels himself as "tea party" (don't ask why we're friends- hard to explain, but I don't just hang with people who think like me). He told me, re stating that the US was founded on Christianity and should remain so, that when the founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence "They prayed. They prayed". I said, "Okay, they prayed. And then they went home and raped their black slaves while their wives turned a blind eye. And your point was...?". He went silent.
 
#16 ·
For those who continue to insist that the US was founded as a Christian nation, ask them when they last actually read the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Federation and the Constitution. Then advise them to do so, and to show you just where any of these three foundational documents indicate the USA is supposed to be Christian. I remember learning in my small town in Nebraska (in a 1 room country schoolhouse for my first 3 years of school, no less) that the SEPARATION of church and state was an important founding principle.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840.html
 
#21 ·
"There is no legitimate reason not to demand voter ID other than the democrats don't want to lose the illegal votes." Interesting that you know the reason. I've never heard that one.

How about this: Demand voter ID and go to the popular vote system? Make tough standards, too.
Can you go for that?

Then, we can get off the subject of what people were thinking 200 years ago when they came up with the Electoral College and whether it makes sense today.

One of the things I have found interesting about Donald Trump's position-shifting is that he was all in favor of abolishing the Electoral College until he lost the popular vote and won the other way.

How's this for the reason California became a "sanctuary state". They need those illegal workers for the huge agricultural industry to function. Works for me. That doesn't mean I approve of it, since I'm in favor of the rule of law and CA hasn't succeeded in seceding as yet.
 
#27 ·
Just a couple of things on this topic. First, if it is true (although I HIGHLY doubt it) that undocumented immigrants are voting in vast numbers; then they are more civic minded in a foreign country then about 42% of the citizens.
Over 90 Million Eligible Voters Didn’t Vote in the 2016 Presidential Election

Second, every one of the fifty U.S. states except North Dakota already requires voter registration. What is a national voter ID going to do other than expand the government even more (something most conservatives say they oppose) and make it even more difficult for legitimately qualified people to actually vote?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_registration_in_the_United_States

Finally, as to why the U.S. has an Electoral College, the very reason stated by none other than Alexander Hamilton in "The Federalist Papers" was to prevent someone like Donald Trump from ever being elected:

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

So, given that in the last election the Electoral College did exactly the opposite of what was intended by the founders, I think it might be safe to say it is time to rethink its usefulness.
 
#31 · (Edited)
Zorro states:

"Any links given are ignored, if any person here dares to go against the grain their character is assassinated as Urbanman demonstrated, words they never used are put into their mouth and "mindsets" they don't have are thrust upon them. Just saying the word "illegals" makes one a bigot. You have been thoroughly indoctrinated to only use the kinder term "undocumented" like that makes a difference.

Illegals are voting, this is a fact, a fact you choose to ignore because once again, we all know why democrats so strongly oppose voter ID. That is because they know they are getting these votes but honesty obviously takes a back seat to politics with liberals."

You ignored absolute evidence I posted rebutting your far rt. wing propaganda link and even has exact names of the propagandist and their bogus claims - didn´t you?

The problem with your website is in California you cannot vote without first registering to vote. When you register to vote you prove your identity Photo ID like a California drivers licence with your address and citizenship by swearing on the registration form your data is true under pentally of law. They copy your stats, check it out later and then yourare registered in Calif. Then to actually vote they send you a voter´s postcard every election you need to take with you when voting to your home. The postcard has the address of your closest voting station [you can´t got to anyother voting station. There you show them your postcard, they have got to a long printed out list to find your name. mark their list you are there to vote and give you a voting form. That is why no photo or other ID is reguired. Without your voter´s postcard you are not registered to vote anywhere in California. Absentee ballots have the same proceedure. No way to get around it in California. Undocumented aliens even one with specially marked Calif. drivers license cannot get registered to vote in California.

If your think all the states you mention allow anyone to walk in to vote your are sadly mistaken - taken for a ride by the far rt. wing media to be sure. It isn´t what they tell you it is more times than not.
 
#32 ·
Zorro2017 said:
This thread is typical of this forum, why we have 37 guests and three member viewing at any given time, who wants to get involved in something like this?
All of this is occurring in a chat thread clearly labelled as controversial. So those with tender souls can easily avoid.


If you think all the states you mention allow anyone to walk in to vote your are sadly mistaken
This is true Alan.

However, systems are imperfect. And some of the staff who work the election day booths likely are not 100% vigilant in all places.

So, I can accept that some of the votes cast are probably not from people following all the rules.

However, the notion that it is more than a very very small number has not been asserted or proven by anyone credible.

Interesting that Trump surprisingly carried the rural vote by massive margins of victory in several key states. Where the media is less present monitoring all the goings on. And because of a smaller number of people being involved, and in some cases use of the oldest procedures and technology, there is more scope for funny business. Nothing proven, but interesting to ponder.
 
#34 ·
Backing an assertion with unproven material is futile. Seems most of the assertions on the subject so far are just that. Since it's nearly a year since it was a done deal and there's no way I can think of to invalidate the election, maybe it's time to focus or whether or not the system should be improved for the future. I agree with Trump's original position when he said he'd like to see the Electoral College abolished. Smile.
 
#39 ·
Four pages of posts on this thread I started and yet not one person actually responded to what I had written.
That being able to cast a NO vote in lieu of a YES vote would be far more democratic and give a much more accurate representation of the will of the people.
 
#42 ·
So, you think you're smarter than the Founding Fathers, the most brilliant generation of thinkers America has ever produced?

I have done a lot of reading on the Federalist Papers. You should, too.

In a snapshot, the Founders wanted to create system of free individuals in which the state was subordinate to the individual, quite the reverse of the 1,000 plus years since the fall of Rome, in which European states became e more and more centralized, with the state deciding how much freedom individuals had.

The Founders all knew cold the history of the rise and fall of Greek democracy and the Roman Republic, and of course England's 800 year struggle to shift power from absolute kings to people's elected representatives, and devoured all they could of the then-current Age of Reason.

They had, via John Locke and their own experiences, an absolute understanding of human nature, how good and bad existed in each person. Two their main conclusions, that people worked hard for themselves and their families, except in times of national emergencies, mainly war. Therefore, America could be most productive if the state interfered as little as possible in the life of citizens. But the state was needed for national defense and of course to police criminals.

The Constitution is unique by making central that state power came from decisions of free people, not the state deciding what it could do.

They had two major fears, knowing human nature, that the central gov't, especially the president, would accrue too much power over the years, which is of course why they created three co-equal branches of gov't. It did give voters the most direct control over the gov't by instituting the provision that ever single proposal to spend gov't money must originate in the House of Representatives, whose members are elected every two years.

Senators were of course then elected by state governments.

They also rightly feared "direct democracy," which you are proposing. Again, they understood human nature, and understood that a temporary majority could cause tremendous havoc, up to physically destroying the temporary minority.

The Electoral College is a brilliant creation and a major reason for Ul.S. political stability. Even though the U.S. was ten restricted to the East Coast, they rightly saw that under direct democracies, the then big cities of Boston, New York and Philadelphia would control the government. The concerns of voters in the much larger rural states would be ignored.

Under the Electoral College, a successful presidential candidate has to put forward programs that appeal to a very diverse range of people in a wide range of states, not just urban voters concentrated in two or three percent of national territory.

Their insights were proven frightfully correct ink less than a decade when "pure reason" overthrew the French monarchy and direct democracy was instituted, which led directly to the French Terror, the butchering of the temporary minority. The French regained their senses in a few years, but not until the democracy" you crave chopped off tens of thousands of heads, The French acknowledged the horrible errors od the":temporary majority, but that didn't help the victims too much, did it.

I love living in a country in which I know that even if the country elects a person I consider dangerous, I can get up and whistle my way to work the next day knowing the presidents supporters won't be coming for me.

You know, the UK has a direct democracy, with almost 99% of power residing in House of Commons, with House of Lords rendered toothless in just past two decades.

When the Brits elected socialist governments in the 1940s and 70s, they were immediately able to nationalize large sections of the private sector with compensation they determined, which brought the country to near total poverty. Maggie Thatcher restored capitalism and New Labour" under Tony Blair also embraced capitalism, and the UKI has made the best transition to 21st century economics in Europe. The leaders of wealthy Germany and Sweden know that their strong economies depend almost exclusively on ever improving 19th and early 20th century technologies. Their governments, along with those of China, Japan and South Korea, have spent tens of billions of dollars to instill a drive for innovation in their people, all with dismal results.

In the U.S., we've seen what the idea of individual freedom has brought. The military and scientists worked together to develop a communication system that would work outside normal channels and that evolved towards the internet, which the U.S. gave to the world for free.

But still. computer technology was confined to mainframes, tightly controlled by a high priesthood of techies.

Bill Gates and his partner, and Steve Jobs and his partner had the same vision: how can we put the tremendous power of the computer into the hands of everyone, which led to he personal computer. Then, Americans thought, how can we put a PC into everyone's pocket and boom, the smart phone. It was then Jobs who understood how to make the smart phone simple enough for everyone and filled with apps we didn't know we need, and super boom, the first iPhone.

It's now essential worldwide. Americans and immigrants to America then developed Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Uber, Airbnb, all of which gave ever more power to the individual over the state. Yeah,t heir power, or rather future power, can get out of control, can get frightening.

Now, I've lived outside the U.S. for 18 years and love the diversity and strengths of other cultures, especially the family. We were certainly the first to adopt the "nuclear family" in which it became weird for kids to live in the family home after age 20. I prefer the custom inmost other families of multi-generational compounds, or even in urban areas where most kids set up households very close to their families.

BUT, U.S. (yes, including many brilliant foreigners who emigrated to America because they correctly understood they could put their ideas into action most easily in the U.S.) has completely formed the modern world. World culture is all based on the U.S., from Hollywood and TV (and again, wonderful Netflix and its imitators, again born of the idea of putting entertainment choices into the hands of each individual, rather than the time and place decided by industry executives). Worldwide, everyone wears blue jeans, running shoes and tee shirts (though we must apologize as a nation for putting men in shorts); all new music that's been developed since 20th century is American - blues, jazz, rhythm and blues, soul, rock'n'roll, rap. Ok, reggie no.

OK, in UK, Jeremy Corbyn is a proud hard-line Marxist and with poor Teresa May flailing, he stands good chance of becoming PM. With just 51% of Parliament, he openly pledges to nationalize much of private sector and U.S. ten companies can be expected to be treated lie French aristocrats.

I'll take our Electoral College. Human nature doesn't change.
 
#43 ·
You seem to be assuming that the Founders were unusually smart, well educated and could foresee the future. That's a lot of assumptions.

While they were putting together the framework for a country, they failed to notice two rather important items: Slavery and women.
How about addressing those particularly obvious issues? Was it because those brilliant minds didn't notice them, or didn't WANT to notice them? At least one of them was creating offspring with one who was both.
From what I've leaned, the founders were a good-old-boys collection of well educated men whose notion of human nature was very limited.

The fall of nations, including the ancient "democracies" is and was the end result of greed. When power and wealth become concentrated in a tiny minority, the inevitable decay of a nation happens. Revolution happens. Chaos happens. I doubt the Founders intended to create a nation with such a sorry balance of haves to have-nots. Or, perhaps they did. They were the "haves" of their time.

Passing on to the benefits of technology, we have now achieved a nation of Twitterers passing propaganda, lies, "alternative facts", opinions and trivia around at ever-increasing speed. Yes, these people have the power to influence elections. Is this a good thing?

On a very pedestrian level, it's only too common to see a family or group of friends at a dining table... not talking to one another, but all busily tapping at their phones. This is desirable?

We also are seeing an appalling erosion of personal privacy, thanks to technology.

Finally, the U.S. in its latest incarnation and expression of the power of the people, has shown a resurgence of hate groups of every stripe, freely expressing themselves and sometimes physically violent. This is progress and democracy in action?

The Founding Fathers meant well within the context of their century, but they did not foresee the world of the future. I can't think of a perfect system, but the one that exists needs work.
 
#44 ·
Additional thoughts on the Electoral College: What could be more unfair than the "winner take all" states sending delegates from only one political party? Imagine the lopsided representation if several largely populated states had a close vote?
If that practice were abolished, I think it would be an improvement.
 
#47 ·
Since this is not a constitutional requirement, it is left up to each state to decide how to allocate its votes. But at any given point in time, the party in power naturally tends to favor the "winner takes all" approach since that's what gives them the biggest advantage. Unfortunately, I don't foresee a wave of states suddenly deciding to vote for principle over political interest in the near future.

.
 
#48 ·
Agree, up to a point. However, if many more Supreme Court vacancies occur in the near future, things will get very lopsided very fast in the near future.
Only one is needed. And given the ages of the current justices (younger conservatives, much older liberals), it is likely to change the balance of the court for decades to come.

.
 
#49 · (Edited by Moderator)
[Cut]

Anyone educated before 1980 is rolling on the floor in laughter on your assessment on how ill educated the Founders were. I'll deal with other stuff later.. Here's what I'm "assuming" on Thomas Jefferson:

"As a boy, Thomas Jefferson's favorite pastimes were playing in the woods, practicing the violin and reading. He began his formal education at the age of nine, studying Latin and Greek at a local private school run by the Reverend William Douglas. In 1757, at the age of 14, he took up further study of the classical languages as well as literature and mathematics with the Reverend James Maury, whom Jefferson later described as "a correct classical scholar."

In 1760, having learned all he could from Maury, Jefferson left home to attend the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia's capital. Although it was the second oldest college in America (after only Harvard), William and Mary was not at that time an especially rigorous academic institution. Jefferson was dismayed to discover that his classmates expended their energies betting on horse races, playing cards and courting women rather than studying. Nevertheless, the serious and precocious Jefferson fell in with a circle of older scholars that included Professor William Small, Lieutenant Governor Francis Fauquier and lawyer George Wythe, and it was from them that he received his true education.

After three years at William and Mary, Jefferson decided to read law under Wythe, one of the preeminent lawyers of the American colonies. There were no law schools at this time; instead aspiring attorneys "read law" under the supervision of an established lawyer before being examined by the bar. Wythe guided Jefferson through an extraordinarily rigorous five-year course of study (more than double the typical duration); by the time Jefferson won admission to the Virginia bar in 1767, he was already one of the most learned lawyers in America.

From 1767-'74, Jefferson practiced law in Virginia with great success, trying many cases and winning most of them. " [

So, Jefferson, along with James Monroe, Roger Mason and many other Founders, were drilled in Classical Greek and Latin and read all available masterpieces on history, law and gov't in those languages. Then, as was the custom of the day, they debated those words and how they applied to their society with teachers and fellow students. The Roman Republic lasted for 500 years, double what we've reached so far. They understood those systems were not built to evolve (and who can blame the Greeks and Romans. They were the first.) and so learned as students that a stable system must be set up to evolve.

"Thomas Jefferson was one of the earliest and most fervent supporters of the cause of American independence from Great Britain. He was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1768 and joined its radical bloc, led by Patrick Henry and George Washington. In 1774, Jefferson penned his first major political work, "A Summary View of the Rights of British America," which established his reputation as one of the most eloquent advocates of the American cause.

"In June 1776, the Congress appointed a five-man committee (Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston) to draft a Declaration of Independence. The committee then chose Jefferson to author the declaration's first draft, selecting him for what John Adams called his "happy talent for composition and singular felicity of expression." Over the next 17 days, Jefferson drafted one of the most beautiful and powerful testaments to liberty and equality in world history."

So, Iagoloo, what are some of you accomplishments in life that over-ride Jefferson? Please share with us your "one of the most beautiful and powerful testaments to liberty and equality in world history."

"In 1777, Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which established freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Although the document was not adopted as Virginia state law for another nine years, it was one of Jefferson's proudest life accomplishments."

Besides being governor of Virginia, ambassador to France, vice prez, two term prez, Jefferson wasn't done yet:

"Jefferson also dedicated his later years to organizing the University of Virginia, the nation's first secular university. He personally designed the campus, envisioned as an "academical village," and hand-selected renowned European scholars to serve as its professors. The University of Virginia opened its doors on March 7, 1825, one of the proudest days of Jefferson's life."

Yeah, you're right, those Founding Fathers. we can all laugh at their shallow, ill-educated lives,
 
#50 · (Edited)
What do you hope to achieve with a lame attempt at sarcasm and personal insults?

In my previous post, I stated that the Founders were a well educated group. Jefferson, in particular, was a true scholar. You failed to respond to my dig that Jefferson was also a slave owner, etc. In fact, you failed to provide a rational response to any of my points.

You haven't presented your own achievements, so why ask for mine? Neither yours nor mine are appropriate to present on a public web forum unless they relate to the subject. If you are a university professor of history, let's hear about it, along with the proper check-able details. I was educated before and after 1980, and have had a continuing interest in U.S. and world history, most of which is not taught correctly in the schools. If you want to whitewash the rather reprehensible story of the U.S.A. and how it has treated its native population, immigrants, slaves, women, and others, feel free to celebrate your own version of reality. I find it somewhat amusing.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top