The failure of the flawed, tyrannical and failed state of Athens, has no bearing on the contemporary American definition of democracy and despite the fact that the U.S. is a Constitutional Representative Republic, our Presidential Election is a series of 50 democratic elections which inform the point structure of the Electoral College. The most cynical libertarian jibberish doesn't change the fact that presidential elections in the United States of America have profoundly affected the course of this nation with resoundingly positive ways only dreamed of by the culturally inferior ancient Greek city states. America has repented and has absolved itself from its most heinous cultural sins as it will eventually do with the misogynist atrocity of abortion.

Whatever your indictment of political corruption and demographic fall out for those who voluntarily abdicate their rights, it is undeniable that every subdivision in America has felt the warm sunlight of national prosperity and beneficial political representation. The prosperity and benefits have even been enjoyed by noncitizens, violent criminals, historically marginalized and victimized groups such as homosexuals and even most recently the tiniest of minorities, the transgenders.

The fact is that Donald Trump won the most verified election in world history when he won the Republican Party Primary despite having zero allies in the party or in Washington. Also, in President Trump's case, many of those who never voted before voted for him. We are living through the most libertarian era in American history under the most libertarian President. Conversely, the DNC rigged the 2016 Primaries, and have criticized the Constitutional election processes, because of the Republican Party Electoral College which contradicts your claim that voting is a tyranny of the majority over a minority of the public. You cherry-pick terms like voter and public by claiming one is not the other. As we know, even noncitizens vote which explains the popular vote.

Finally, the Democrat Party through this impeachment process which lacks high crimes, misdemeanors, and impropriety of any sort have vocalized their distrust in the electoral process that they have been unable to illegally augment and distrust the wisdom of Americans to choose their President as they have successfully done 45 times.
Giving Democrats power will enable their attempt to further weaponize the government against Republican opposition just as Obama attempted to do. Even the Democrat voter is losing their choice. Free elections is the central issue surrounding the 2020 campaign, and patriotic American Democrats have the power to steer their party in a more positive direction. Just as it was inappropriate for John Robert's to admonish both sides after Nadler's uncivil comments on the opening session of the Senate trial. The "both sides are wrong" theory is bogus and clearly without merit.

We will neither be influenced by your flimsy remark that we already do not have fair elections merely to influence those who do believe in the U.S. Constitution to abandon it. Especially at this point in history that it is firing on all cylinders. God Bless America, and again, a vote for Trump is a the vote for free elections and the perpetuation of this Republic.

@Facci wrote:

"The most cynical libertarian jibberish..."

Dictates, ad-hominem attacks, and what will be next?

"...the fact that presidential elections in the United States of America have profoundly affected the course of this nation with resoundingly positive ways only dreamed of by the culturally inferior ancient Greek city states."

Ok, that is a creative accounting attempt. The cause for "positive ways" is squarely accounted for and that accountability belongs to "presidential elections."

Those are facts according to this particular accountant.

Here is a competitive viewpoint:

"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."

So there now are two viewpoints.

Elections of Presidents of Arbitrary Governments cause "resoundingly positive" STUFF (not eluded to in any way) "only dreamed of" by the original democrats.

What was The Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation? I suppose that was "resondingly positive" STUFF.

How about The Alien and Secition Acts?

More "resoundingly positive" STUFF?

How about Subsidizing the African Slave Trade?

More "resoundingly positive" STUFF?

What next?

"America has repented and has absolved itself from its most heinous cultural sins as it will eventually do with the misogynist atrocity of abortion."

What happened to "Elections" being the cause of all this goodness?

@Josf-Kelley Clearly, elections resulted in the end of the legal African slave trade in 1820, and the end of Slavery by 1865. All of the elections resulted in all of the successes of civil rights legislations and labor laws. Most recently America elected Donald Trump who defends the Constitution against his opponents who fail to uphold their oaths of office. The United States is a clear success due to its free elections and will continue to be. Clearly, the end of infanticide and mass abortions targeted at the poor and the racial minorities to the benefit of sex traffickers and sexual predators would be yet another victory for civil rights as would be recognized by the earliest Republican Suffrage movement.

@Facci

"Clearly, elections resulted in the end of the legal African slave trade in 1820, and the end of Slavery by 1865."

That is not clear.

The following 3 viewpoints are demonstrably clear as to cause and effect.

1. June 17, 1788
   George Mason:
   "Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union."

Clearly, "elections" were a means to an end, a tool used by people. The tool was used to take out the federation and replace the federation with a Nation-State Corporate Legal Fiction. The result of those people using those elections includes the result that was warned: "bring us to weakness." That means that the people as a whole were brought to weakness, that does not mean that the slave traders who wanted their business subsidized were brought to weakness.

2. New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism, March 7, 1788

"Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.

"That a national government will prevent the influence or danger of foreign intrigue, or secure us from invasion, is in my judgment directly the reverse of the truth. The only foreign, or at least evil foreign influence, must be obtained through corruption. Where the government is lodged in the body of the people, as in Switzerland, they can never be corrupted; for no prince, or people, can have resources enough to corrupt the majority of a nation; and if they could, the play is not worth the candle. The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few. . . .
A FARMER

The cause of the Civil War was known predictively as documented.

3. Garrison's Constitution
   The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made
   By Paul Finkelman, 2000

"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.

"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."

The "elections" that took out the federation and replaced the federation with a Nation-State Corporate Legal Fiction are not the cause of the Civil War, no more than a gun can cause a murder. The people who fraudulently brought about "elections" in place of Rule of Law (an existing federal agreement), used "elections" to subsidize their slave business and many other goals. That is clear at least to me.

"Most recently America elected Donald Trump who defends the Constitution against his opponents who fail to uphold their oaths of office."

You do not speak for America, despite your claims. I did not pretend to "vote," and nearly half of the people that constitute America (The Public as a whole) also did not pretend to "vote," in the most recent "Election." I call it an election psycho, a play on the term "Election Cycle," like a hamster wheel is a Cycle, and the good old Boom and Bust Cycle, and that old saying that insanity is exemplified when people expect a different result from the result that consistently proves to be the predictable result. You can claim it to be whatever you want. I'm sure you have enough people to join you in the facade.

As to Oaths of Office I've found more than enough evidence to prove to me that honest people don't need them, and that leaves an obvious cause for them to exist.

"Clearly, the end of infanticide and mass abortions targeted at the poor and the racial minorities to the benefit of sex traffickers and sexual predators would be yet another victory for civil rights as would be recognized by the earliest Republican Suffrage movement."

If people choose not to kill other people under any individual circumstance my bet is that it was a decision accountable to an individual who had the benefit of internal moral conscience, and perhaps another individual with yet another beneficial, internal, moral conscience helping to make the moral decision in that time and place, at that fork in that road.

If you and your fellow believers in electoral politics or parliamentary procedures want to give credit to "elections," then who is to say otherwise?

@Josf-Kelley you fail to make a convincing argument.

If you are trying to argue for a "Popular Vote" forget it! There is a very good reason why the framers came up with the Electoral College for voting who runs the country! If we did not have it the 3 biggest states would get to decide who wins and the rest of the country would not get a say!
If you notice how two of the three are falling into despair then you can see WHY having those SAME people elect a President would be a BAD idea! They can not even elect people to take care of their own state! We do not want them deciding for us all!

@Josf-Kelley the newest cause for civil rights:
[facebook.com]

@dawna107

Who are your comments directed at? No one I know is arguing, let alone for so-called "Popular Vote."

The statement that "wins" the argument (an argument that does not exist in my opinion) is already offered, but I will repeat it for those who do not automatically judge negatively before investigating the data required for judgment:

"The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify."

The Federation before 1789 was voluntary, those who wanted it were free to join en masse. Those who joined were free to unjoin en masse.

If there was an argument concerning that statement above that argument was settled in the years after 1789, beginning with The Judiciary Act of 1789, then many encroachments upon the voluntary nature of federation, leading to a peak of "argument" during what people call the Civil War. Now, much fewer people "argue" against the statement of fact: before 1789 the federation was voluntary, not mandatory.

The people being free in a federation means that the National government has no right to the people in the federation. If that is data not worth knowing then don' t know it as you wish, but for people who do not want to know that data to then claim that the "argument" fails is a political tactic.

"There is a very good reason why the framers came up with the Electoral College for voting who runs the country! If we did not have it the 3 biggest states would get to decide who wins and the rest of the country would not get a say!"

Do you speak about the framers of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the original federal constitution, the State constitutions (12), or something more specific?

If you speak about the people who wrote the 1787 Constitution, then you might want to know that many people were against it, people like George Mason who refused to sign it, voted against it, spoke out against it, and was one of the people credited with "framing" a Bill of Rights. Patrick Henry was also against it.

"If we did not have it the 3 biggest states would get to decide who wins and the rest of the country would not get a say!"

Those against the Constitution were against unequal footing for States and for individuals, for reasons that you appear to understand. The Constitution of 1789 empowered the National government with an arbitrarily large foot arbitrarily ruling over everyone in every State.

"If we did not have it the 3 biggest states would get to decide who wins and the rest of the country would not get a say!"

Perhaps you did not get it, or did not read the response, but I can repeat, and reinforce:

"... in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify."

That is called dictatorship.

Here was another warning:

"Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a standing army? Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands."
Philadelphiensis IX
February 06, 1788

"They can not even elect people to take care of their own state! We do not want them deciding for us all!"

I know this is long, and I do not assume that anyone will read it, let alone understand the message intended, nor undersand the context where the message intended fits very well. I republish these messages for cause.

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

Your point is irrelevant to my post.