[Rich]

In the unlikely event you can provide a coherent explanation of what you mean by representative democracy, do tell.

Why are Americans so ignorant?

All the Thirteen Colonies had representative assemblies. I'll be honest with you, until I came to respond to your post, I hadn't realised just how stupid and unimaginative the American Founders were. The Colonial governments were just models of the British governmental system, with the King being replaced by a governor and the House of Lords being replaced by an appointed council.

Note the Roman Senate was just a house of Lords. The Founder's at both State and Federal level failed to notice that a house of Lords doesn't make much sense with no aristocracy. Really the idea that the world owes anything to those cretin's is beyond absurd.

[late]

All the Thirteen Colonies had representative assemblies. I'll be honest with you, until I came to respond to your post, I hadn't realised just how stupid and unimaginative the American Founders were. The Colonial governments were just models of the British governmental system, with the King being replaced by a governor and the House of Lords being replaced by an appointed council.

Helps if you know what you're talking about, kid.

Indians had something like the UN at Chautauqua. Ben Franklin went there and incorporated what he learned in the Senate. Unlike the argumentative Brits, Senators are expected to be civil.

The Founding Fathers wanted the members of government to be educated and accomplished. A good education was rare back then. If you look at the Founding Fathers, they were a talented bunch. While it was a class based society, Alexander Hamilton was born poor. If you look at the leaders, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson especially, they were exceptional. If you read Jefferson's writing, you realise he was a genius ahead of his time.

A president is a big improvement over having a king...

You can't apply modern standards to an era that didn't have them. It's expecting the impossible. They improved on what the Brits had done, and deliberately made it possible to reform the government to make it better.

[wat0n]

Why are Americans so ignorant?

All the Thirteen Colonies had representative assemblies. I'll be honest with you, until I came to respond to your post, I hadn't realised just how stupid and unimaginative the American Founders were. The Colonial governments were just models of the British governmental system, with the King being replaced by a governor and the House of Lords being replaced by an appointed council.

Note the Roman Senate was just a house of Lords. The Founder's at both State and Federal level failed to notice that a house of Lords doesn't make much sense with no aristocracy. Really the idea that the world owes anything to those cretin's is beyond absurd.

Yet the colonial governors had far broader powers than any President or state governors have ever had.

[Tainari88]

Human relationships in families are generally complicated. That entire idea of racism and class-conscious crap is what the nation of the USA was founded on.

It was contradictory. Interesting analysis of what Jefferson thought. History is really full of contradiction.

[Puffer Fish]

No one is confused by this. Everyone just thinks its dogshit.

Do you understand the reasons for the Electoral College and why it is important for stability of the government and preserving democracy?

Take the Electoral College away and sooner or later you will end up with a disputed election that will tear the country apart, and a Constitutional crisis.

[Fasces]

Do you understand the reasons for the Electoral College and why it is important for stability of the government and preserving democracy?

You just told me the votes don't matter, but somehow the Electoral College is protecting... democracy?

The Electoral College exists because people rode horses in 1789 and because most yokels couldn't read. No other reason.

[Rich]

Yet the colonial governors had far broader powers than any President or state governors have ever had.

True, but shifting powers towards the representative chamber was hardly revolutionary, required no genius to think it up and in fact it was a process that was already under way in within the British governmental system.

The British system in the late eighteenth century was based on a balance of power between the Monarch, the Aristocracy and the Common People or Commoners.

Obviously the concept of commoners has evolved to such an extent that by the end of the 20th century even Jarvis Cocker's status as a Common Person was questioned and it was suggested that he was actually a member of the artsie / intellectual elite.

Anyway in the post 1688 British settlement, there was a real balance of power. The Monarchy, the Aristocracy, the People and to a lesser extent the Church were genuine autonomous power bases. They all had a level of mutually recognised legitimacy.. In the US their was no monarchy, aristocracy or established Church. This means that all the institutions of the American governmental system just reproduce the same two party struggle.

[wat0n]

True, but shifting powers towards the representative chamber was hardly revolutionary, required no genius to think it up and in fact it was a process that was already under way in within the British governmental system.

The British system in the late eighteenth century was based on a balance of power between the Monarch, the Aristocracy and the Common People or Commoners.

Obviously the concept of commoners has evolved to such an extent that by the end of the 20th century even Jarvis Cocker's status as a Common Person was questioned and it was suggested that he was actually a member of the artsie / intellectual elite.

Anyway in the post 1688 British settlement, there was a real balance of power. The Monarchy, the Aristocracy, the People and to a lesser extent the Church were genuine autonomous power bases. They all had a level of mutually recognised legitimacy.. In the US their was no monarchy, aristocracy or established Church. This means that all the institutions of the American governmental system just reproduce the same two party struggle.

Of course it wasn't revolutionary, the real contribution was federalism, not representative government or the concept of checks and balances. There's a reason why people like Madison made constant references to ancient Rome and Greece, they wanted to improve on their systems of checks and balances rather than create something new from scratch like e.g. the Bolsheviks.

[Rich]

Of course it wasn't revolutionary, the real contribution was federalism,

Federalism didn't come about because of some sort of principled constitutionalism, it came about because of the realities of power. Because the Colonies came out of the war as independent states. The State bureaucracies defended their privileges. Aside from that no one cares about State rights. People love to invoke States right's when it suits them and ignore them when it doesn't.

The southerners didn't care about States rights. They cared about slavery. They loved states rights when it helped slavery. They were happy to ride roughshod over them, if they a hindrance to the cause of slavery. A lot of liberals loved state's rights when it meant they could decriminalise cannabis use. States rights are an absurd idea. The idea that states can decide on slavery, marriage or drugs. This is completely unworkable in the long term. What about State's rights for Mormon Polygamists? State's rights are a joke.

For me DOMA had to be the last Straw. After DOMA there has to be an unflinching zero tolerance policy towards any Republican / Conservative hypocrite whining on about State's Rights.

[wat0n]

Federalism didn't come about because of some sort of principled constitutionalism, it came about because of the realities of power. Because the Colonies came out of the war as independent states. The State bureaucracies defended their privileges. Aside from that no one cares about State rights. People love to invoke States right's when it suits them and ignore them when it doesn't.

The southerners didn't care about States rights. They cared about slavery. They loved states rights when it helped slavery. They were happy to ride roughshod over them, if they a hindrance to the cause of slavery. A lot of liberals loved state's rights when it meant they could decriminalise cannabis use. States rights are an absurd idea. The idea that states can decide on slavery, marriage or drugs. This is completely unworkable in the long term. What about State's rights for Mormon Polygamists? State's rights are a joke.

For me DOMA had to be the last Straw. After DOMA there has to be an unflinching zero tolerance policy towards any Republican / Conservative hypocrite whining on about State's Rights.

Nobody said so either.

The Federalist 51 is clear about the reasons for federalism, it was all about improving on checks and balances. Pure realpolitik.

[Rich]

Just to emphasise if Statehood really matter to people, why were there no Californian Republicans saying "Nance Pelosi for Speaker, right or wrong"? Why are there no Florida Democrats campaigning to put Ron De Santis in the White House. The US is totally different from the EU where people really do have a serious attachment to their State.

The American Constitution completely failed to solve the question of Slavery, requiring a Civil War which imposed a completely new Constitutional settlement in essence if not in form.

[wat0n]

Just to emphasise if Statehood really matter to people, why were there no Californian Republicans saying "Nance Pelosi for Speaker, right or wrong"? Why are there no Florida Democrats campaigning to put Ron De Santis in the White House. The US is totally different from the EU where people really do have a serious attachment to their State.

Because the EU isn't a government and the US is.

The EU is actually far closer to the Articles of Confederation years than the US, a system that proved to be only good for a transition and did so very quickly. States would often simply refuse to contribute to the central government outright, leading to the replacement of the system quite quickly.

The American Constitution completely failed to solve the question of Slavery, requiring a Civil War which imposed a completely new Constitutional settlement in essence if not in form.

Sure, and it was blocked by southern states at that. Since the main goal was to create a functioning government, it meant some central wishes of the states had to be respected, underscoring federalism was and still is about realpolitik, checks and balances

A really smart, and elegant solution to the problem faced at that time.

[Rich]

I feel I need to remind Americans of the name, "The Continental Congress". Take careful note. They didn't call it "The Continent below the 49 parallel Congress." They didn't call it "The Continent below the Great Lakes Congress."

Some say that as many as 95% of the native American population was killed in wave after wave of disease. Many dying before they even set eyes on a European. They started from a lower population density than Europe in the first place. This meant that was just masses of land for the taking. This combined with North America's other abundant resources and the inherited Anglo - German culture meant that creating a huge yeomanry middle class was like falling off a log. Democracy and independence, whether as a Republic or a Constitutional monarchy like Australia, new Zealand and Canada were to later become was pretty much inevitable. The American founders were some of the most incompetent losers in history. Prematurely engaging in a long costly, unnecessary civil war, losing half their country in the process and only obtaining the minimal victory they did by being bailed out France, Spain and the Netherlands.

If this wasn't bad enough the Founders set their country up for a second civil war less than 70 years after the conclusion of the first.

[late]

I feel I need to remind Americans of the name, "The Continental Congress". Take careful note. They didn't call it "The Continent below the 49 parallel Congress." They didn't call it "The Continent below the Great Lakes Congress."

You're making sh*t up.

[wat0n]

I feel I need to remind Americans of the name, "The Continental Congress". Take careful note. They didn't call it "The Continent below the 49 parallel Congress." They didn't call it "The Continent below the Great Lakes Congress."

Some say that as many as 95% of the native American population was killed in wave after wave of disease. Many dying before they even set eyes on a European. They started from a lower population density than Europe in the first place. This meant that was just masses of land for the taking. This combined with North America's other abundant resources and the inherited Anglo - German culture meant that creating a huge yeomanry middle class was like falling off a log. Democracy and independence, whether as a Republic or a Constitutional monarchy like Australia, new Zealand and Canada were to later become was pretty much inevitable. The American founders were some of the most incompetent losers in history. Prematurely engaging in a long costly, unnecessary civil war, losing half their country in the process and only obtaining the minimal victory they did by being bailed out France, Spain and the Netherlands.

If this wasn't bad enough the Founders set their country up for a second civil war less than 70 years after the conclusion of the first.

What makes you believe any of this would have happened absent the American Revolution? It undoubtedly set a precedent, an example that would be used later.

And if someone was incompetent, it was the UK which did not take the troubles experienced in its American colonies seriously.

[Rich]

What makes you believe any of this would have happened absent the American Revolution? It undoubtedly set a precedent, an example that would be used later.

And if someone was incompetent, it was the UK which did not take the troubles experienced in its American colonies seriously.

Pitt the Younger and George III are not revered as great leaders. The American nationalist leaders made the same mistake as the Confederate leaders. Pushing too quickly for independence when they should have built up their institutional power more first.

Here's a test for all you Americans, whats wrong with the map change at 11:36?

[wat0n]

Pitt the Younger and George III are not revered as great leaders. The American nationalist leaders made the same mistake as the Confederate leaders. Pushing too quickly for independence when they should have built up their institutional power more first.

Here's a test for all you Americans, whats wrong with the map change at 11:36?

I would say they had built their institutional power well enough. Far better, in fact, than most of the other countries that would become independent from then onwards.