Was the constitution framed as an elitist or populist document?

[phk]

What would you classify the nature of the constitution as during its deveolopment?

[minionofmidas]

As a compromise (using then standards of course - using modern ones, the original constitution, especially as originally intended, would be so elitist that I'm not sure whether the US would even be recognized as a democracy at all. But this is sort of beside the point, I think.)

[opebo]

It represented the pinnacle of elitist political design.  Of course it would not be recognized as such by those who fail to understand the 'Enlightenment'.

As a design, it has been remarkably effective, as we can see by the current extreme inequality in the US.  The part that interests me most is the psychological aspect (or maybe it is just a 'political culture') - nearly all Americans think in a classical liberal manner, so internalized that he cannot even understand any alternative ways of explaining society.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Agree with Lewis. Context is everything.

It represented the pinnacle of elitist political design.

Don't be absurd. You should see some of the stuff idiots like Burke were writing around the same time...

[opebo]

It represented the pinnacle of elitist political design.

Don't be absurd. You should see some of the stuff idiots like Burke were writing around the same time...

What does that have to do with my point?  By pinnacle I meant most effective, not most extreme.

[SPC]

Neither. The Constitution was designed as a document to protect the rule of law, i.e. a republican document. It was neither plutocratic nor democratic.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The constitution is unconstitutional and an illegal document.

[minionofmidas]

The constitution is unconstitutional and an illegal document.

Britain doesn't even have a constitution, so how can any document in Britain be "unconstitutional"?

[12th Doctor]

Both... typical to the nature of extremeists, you can't possibly see how something could be a compromise.

[NDN]

Extremely elitist in nature by our standards. Any document that gives the vote exclusively to land-owning white males is going to be viewed that way.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The constitution is unconstitutional and an illegal document.

Britain doesn't even have a constitution, so how can any document in Britain be "unconstitutional"?

Precisely. A constitution would be against british traditions.

[Eraserhead]

The constitution is unconstitutional and an illegal document.

Straha, you are the man.

[True Democrat]

Extremely elitist in nature by our standards. Any document that gives the vote exclusively to land-owning white males is going to be viewed that way.

Sorry, I must've missed that part.  Which article is the voting rights clause in?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The constitution is unconstitutional and an illegal document.

Straha you are the man.

I am just a humble man.

[SPC]

The constitution is unconstitutional and an illegal document.

Well, I suppose you are right, ironically, in a respect. The Constitution effectively repealed the Articles of Confederation, which was the constitution of the day.

[Eraserhead]

The constitution is unconstitutional and an illegal document.

Straha you are the man.

I am just a humble man.

True.

[Lief 🗽]

Elitist, of course. The entire thing is written with the purpose of marginalizing the voice of the mob, and ensuring that the elite are able to protect the government from the uneducated will of the masses.

[Bacon King]

It was, contemporarily, a compromise between populist and elitist elements. In modern terms, however, it is largely elitist.

[John Dibble]

As a compromise (using then standards of course - using modern ones, the original constitution, especially as originally intended, would be so elitist that I'm not sure whether the US would even be recognized as a democracy at all. But this is sort of beside the point, I think.)

[Хahar 🤔]

Highly elitist. How else do you explain the Electoral College?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Highly elitist. How else do you explain the Electoral College?

As an elegant compromise.

Separation of powers requires that the someone other than the Congress select the elective monarch that is the President.  At the time, given the wide disparity in voter eligibility requirements in the different States, a direct popular vote simply would not have been feasible.  Even suffrage for all white males wouldn't be around for another half century or so.  That leaves either the State governments themselves (already represented in the Senate) or a mechanism such as the Electoral College which bypassed the State governments and went to directly to the voters.

Now as to why having actual electors instead of some sort of direct apportionment of vote based on who people wanted for president, it had to do with the framers being unable to anticipate the rise of  political parties.  Indeed they would have been appalled if they had thought parties would develop, since classical republics had often fallen apart because of party politics.  Without a framework of national political parties that developed during the two terms that Washington served, there simply would have been no opportunity to do a national campaign given the resources and communications of the era.  Aside from some exceptional individuals such as Washington, it was anticipated that the Electoral College would usually serve as a nominating body for the Congress to pick from.

[minionofmidas]

Highly elitist. How else do you explain the Electoral College?

As an elegant compromise.

Separation of powers requires that the someone other than the Congress select the elective monarch that is the President.  At the time, given the wide disparity in voter eligibility requirements in the different States, a direct popular vote simply would not have been feasible.  Even suffrage for all white males wouldn't be around for another half century or so.  That leaves either the State governments themselves (already represented in the Senate) or a mechanism such as the Electoral College which bypassed the State governments and went to directly to the voters.

Now as to why having actual electors instead of some sort of direct apportionment of vote based on who people wanted for president, it had to do with the framers being unable to anticipate the rise of  political parties.  Indeed they would have been appalled if they had thought parties would develop, since classical republics had often fallen apart because of party politics.  Without a framework of national political parties that developed during the two terms that Washington served, there simply would have been no opportunity to do a national campaign given the resources and communications of the era.  Aside from some exceptional individuals such as Washington, it was anticipated that the Electoral College would usually serve as a nominating body for the Congress to pick from.

While I agree with most of what you said, I take exception at calling this highly inelegant stopgap compromise "elegant".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It could have been worse, say with each State having 1 electoral vote, or perhaps basing the electoral votes on tax revenue.

[minionofmidas]

It could have been worse, say with each State having 1 electoral vote, or perhaps basing the electoral votes on tax revenue.

Well yeah. Then again, even the Holocaust could have been worse.

[Verily]

It could have been worse, say with each State having 1 electoral vote, or perhaps basing the electoral votes on tax revenue.

Well, yes, but, "It could have been worse," is no serious argument as to why it shouldn't be better.