"My argument is that it worked as designed, and the design was not to prevent mob rule, but to prevent the popular vote from ruling."

Which is wrong. It was designed so that states like New York or Virginia and THEIR interests did not dominate the union over the interests of the smaller states. The interest was how to govern a varied population (both economically, ethnically and religiously) without creating a tyranny.

Again, I recommend A Constitutional Journal. Its fairly short and the author does an excellent job presenting the information to the average layman.

Why be a prat? You asked a truly irrelevant question which I ignored (rather than ridicule). I, however, corrected a factual error of yours and provided you with a suggestion to follow up should you be so inclined.

BTW, there's a strong argument argument that Nixon actually one the popular vote in the 1960 election against Kennedy -- so your answer should have an "*" by it to include that little factoid.

And why was your question irreverent? Because the system was designed so that the STATES choose a President (by popular vote), not people directly. When a candidate wins the popular vote (say, like Gore in 2000), all that means is states like California wanted him by a large percentage which over-shadowed the wins of other states.

That it worked as designed isn't interesting or useful in your argument.

"Yeah, a serious threat to their wealthy, racially privileged position at the top of the pyramid."

While there may have been a few present at the constitutional convention with that rationale, they were very few. Most representatives were much more altruistic than that. The argued reasons were that PASSIONS were a threat to the stability of any government. The sudden swings and moods of the people can destroy a country. Read Federalist 10.

To get a better understanding of what transpired I would highly recommend A Constitutional Journal (by St. John). It's an excellent laymens account. I prefer the notes of Madison as well as various journal entries and letters from the members, but St John is not only informative, it's entertaining.

Another serious thread was noted by Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."

"Democracy means any government the people vote on. "

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Democracy is a form of government where those ELIGIBLE can vote. And my point about this (the US) *NOT* being a democracy is accurate. While most offices/posts are filled democratically, not all are -- and each of those posts are for representatives who will decide upon the direction government takes. The people take no direct roll in the direction of government.

What actually weakens the "vote" are uninformed and irresponsible voters.

" If you don't have a job, I guess you have a lower threshold for crime. "

I've been homeless and I've been jobless and I cannot disagree with you more. I think the reason it MIGHT appear that way is that people are willing to risk potential punishment for quick rewards rather than put in the work necessary to earn them. It's really as simple as that. There is virtually no place in the US where someone who is homeless and jobless cannot get enough assistance from city/state/private agency to change their situation. The exceptions are those in similar circumstance who are UNABLE to work or manage their own care/life due to mental illness or substance abuse.

" It's a fundamental right to participate in democracy, "

Two points... (1) The US isn't a democracy. It's a republic ("...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."). (2) Voting isn't a "right" in the US. It's a privilege.

" Stroke of fucking genius."

I think we're on the same page as this being a bad idea -- but I'm no where near as far along that page as you.

They most likely won't be able to read/write CURSIVE. They'll be able to read JUST fine. They'll be able to WRITE (print little letters that look like the letters they read). Will they be able to write quickly? Probably not, but they'll be able to write just fine.

"I haven't read how they know it's from Mars, just how exactly do they know?"

When they turned it over, there was a little sticker that said "Made on Mars".

I read the article. The rock didn't leave Mars 4.4 billion years ago.

"It began its journey to Earth more than 5 million years ago, about the time humans and chimpanzees were splitting from a common ancestor. That is when an asteroid struck Mars, catapulting the rock into space. "

5 million years is still a long time but is really a drop in the bucket and I doubt the rocks would have changed much.

Kind of a cross between "Transcendence" and "Limitless".

What could go wrong?

"And states should be allowed to legalise (sp) slavery. Because that worked so well the last time."

Sigh... Why not look at the history of the world as a whole. What nation ever fought itself over the issue of slavery? To the tune of over 600k dead?

Many of our abolitionist founders believed that slavery was a dead end doomed to end in the near future but elected to allow the south to maintain it for the interest of the union. It was essentially the cotton gin's invention which allowed slavery to remain economically viable far longer than they expected.

Without that economic leep after the 1790s, attitudes would have changed in the south as much they had in the north regarding slavery and it would have ended -- WITHOUT bloodshed. You've effectively made my point -- when a powerful central government makes a uniform law across a heterogeneous population, someone's rights are going to feel violated and they could very well go the route of the US in 1776 or the South in 1862.

I'm not saying that slavery or the south was in any way honorable. That war needed to be fought and is an exception brought on be a dramatic and swift economic change..

"thanks for letting us know you don't know what average means."

Your example shows you don't know what an IQ measures. Thanks for letting us know.

It's pretty apparent he meant half are below an IQ of 100, assuming 100 as the average (mean) and intelligence is evenly distributed (which basically defines an IQ test score) .

While an IQ of 99 isn't REALLY below average, his statement about expectations is appropriate.

Still, with a REAL number of about 25% below average intelligence (90 and below) we are left with about 80 million dullards out of about 320 million fellow citizens.

"Ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. It's forcing one person religious beliefs on another.
Banning gay marriage is no different then banning a religion."

I don't believe in rights magically appearing to be constitutional where they never have been before. I believe that if they can magically appear, they can magically disappear using the exact same mechanism. Living in such a world might appeal to you but it does not appeal to me. In fact, it scares the bejeezus out of me.

"We aren't that heterogeneous any more.
Drive around the country. Same strip malls, same gas stations, people watch the same set of entertainment.
Hell, do to TV, regional accents aren't as strong as they used to be."

Of course we are. I've driven across the country numerous times and lived in several states. Without listing countless examples, I'll cite one. Red states vs. blue states. Different political and economic philosophies.

"Also, thats not why it was set up that way."

Of course it was. Read Federalist 10 and 28. Federalism was set up to aid in preventing tyranny (and thus a civil war) by keeping all power in a central government, as well as to allow various other ideals to be tested and tried. A central authority is not by definition "tyrannical", however when trying to apply the same laws on an entire heterogeneous population with different economic religious beliefs a central single authority will by definition become tyrannical. Example, forcing a business owner to serve a customer for a service of which he has a moral objection violates his religious rights while the customer's civil rights may viewed as being violated. How long until the one who's rights are being suppressed follow Jefferson's observations:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" -- Jefferson

"All the Federal courts have said is that if the states wish to have a legal institution of marriage that it must be compatible with the 14th amendment, and States which do not allow gays to marry do not meet that requirement."

That statement is profoundly inaccurate. There have been federal courts that have decided on both sides and SCOTUS has yet to make a final decision. Hell, Prop 8 (California) was tossed out because the SCOTUS found the petitioners had "no standing". That was honestly a poor decision and a deliberate dodge. A liberal court may likely decide that the 14th amendment applies, but a conservative court would not. We have a 5/4 SCOTUS right now that have deliberately been trying to avoid making the decision you cite. I think it's inevitable that they will take up a case where they'll need to decide, however.

This is exactly the type of of issue that SHOULD be left to the states until society is more agreeable to it. I believe it's inevitable. If the far left state of California time and time again passed legislation against same-sex marriage and even added an amendment to it's State Constitution to forbid it then it should be painfully obvious that the doesn't come anywhere near the level of acceptance that interracial marriages had in the 60's. Note that Loving v Virgina was a UNANIMOUS decision.

"The US is nowhere near as heterogenous as you think. "

And I think you underestimate how important those differences are or how unevenly they are distributed. I've traveled the US numerous times. I've been to every state in the union (except alaska) numerous times and have lived long stretches (3 or more years) in 5 of them. Trust me, while we have more in common than different, those differences can become QUITE important. Particularly when we paint differences of political and economic philosophy in terms of "good" and "evil".

Moving from state to state *IS* more common that it was, but it is not universal and far from it. About 60% of the population are still residing in the state in which they were born. Of the rest, ~20% are foreign born -- leaving about ~20% "mobile" with the highest percentage of non-movers being in the mid-west. The lowest is the west. And the differences in numbers are profound (about 20+ percentage points different between the two regions).

Look it up. Census.gov is freely available. Or check up on a William Frey -- he published "The Great American Migration Slowdown".