By delegates from 10 of the 13 extent states, I read you were elected [unopposed] as the new Republic's first President.
Obviously, there were laws to draft and the organizational structure of day to day governing to set in place, so--time was of the essence. Also, there were vocal sceptics and critics, and those still loyal to the Crown convinced that it was only a matter of [a short] time when this experiment would implode. So those doubters needed to be convinced this new nation could work--sooner than later.
The confusing and unusual creation of America's Electoral College was formed with the best of intentions - originally - so states with smaller populations would have an effective say in choosing a President. [Well in theory that is unless states move the 'goal-posts' for certain precincts.]
ELECTORAL COLLEGE: In a nutshell: The electoral College was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as an alternative to electing the president by popular vote or by Congress. Each state elects the number of representatives to the Electoral College that is equal to its number of Senators [2 from each state] plus its number of delegates in Congress. The District of Columbia [DC] has no voting representation in Congress but has 3 Electoral College votes. There are currently 538 electors in the Electoral College and 270 votes are needed to win the presidential election. [source National Archives]
However, after George declined to serve beyond two four-year terms a 1796 rush for the top created America's first hotly contentious election between the Federalist, John Adams [a suspected monarchy sympathizer] and Republican Thomas Jefferson [branded a French revolutionary sympathizer]. And - 'we-the-people-' haven't had any peace since...
*But--have 'we-the-people/voters' brought much of that on ourselves? I don't know if George Washington knew or even met Englishman Alexander Tyler, but Tyler's 1787 comment on the 'new' United States experiment was insightful. "A democracy will continue to exist up-until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result democracy will finally collapse due to that fiscal policy."
[Okay Fellow-Travelers has anything like that happened recently--like--student loan forgiveness?]
TRUTH IN [POLITICAL] ADVERTISING: Truth in advertising laws in the U.S. are monitored and regulated by the Federal Trade Commission [FTC] The laws exist to protect consumers, but not apparently--voters. So, if you're duped into buying tomatoes advertised as "organic" when they weren't grown in soil mixed with high quality goat poop--just ordinary dirt--then you're protected by all kinds of laws, standards and regulations. However, if you voted for someone running for a high political office based on their promise to: "unify-the-country-and-work-with-colleagues-from-both-parties"--but that has 'not' happened--then you're stuck...
Apparently when it comes to political ads - that's where the FTC jurisdiction ends because political ads regardless of how packed they are with all manner of deception is entirely protected by the First Amendment. Because--the core of the First Amendment protects "freedom of speech". Case in point. In 2006, Congress passed a law that criminalized making false claims about one’s military service. A local candidate in California who was falsely claiming he’d won the Congressional Medal of Honor, was brought up on charges. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
"And the Supreme Court said, 'No, First Amendment applies. You can lie about your military service. ... You can’t ban lies in public discourse.'"
People can say anything they want in a political-speech. [Except on Facebook or Twitter if your 'speech' is considered by them to be hostile or 'too' opinionated...] Further--there is a difference in 'allowances' for Broadcast Networks like ABC, NBC, CBS -and- Cable Networks like CNN and FOX...Anyway...
**Buyer/Voter Beware. Lies in our political forum no matter how corrupt or outrageous--are protected!
VOTING: Beyond voting for a person our 'say' in what and how those [elected] people respond or don't--[to issues] by those who have been entrusted with so much in the hands of so few has steadily eroded since 1796.
Weekly surveys since Jan 2022 show the list of priorities for Ms. & Mr. Main Street [we-the-people] in no particular order is: a] inflation, b] illegal immigration/border security, c] minimum national education standards, d] national healthcare for citizens--same as federal employees and Congress/Senate enjoy, e] phased in environmental regulations based on updated infrastructure and a return to recycling, d] election integrity, e] fiscal and policy accountability f] less government [g] mortgage/interest rates [h] weak supply chains [i] crime/gun safety...
Does writing to or calling the office of your federal or state representative make a difference? Yes, but from my experience a significant number of other people also need to call or write and then--too often if what is important to you only becomes a national ground swell, like birth control rights for women.
***Besides the Separation of Church and State--perhaps there also needs to be a Separation of Medicine and State -and- a Separation of Education and State...
Look what happens when voters truly get to choose as they did in Kansas. And that outcome startled all Kansas legislators. Because the Constitution of Kansas requires voters 'not' legislators to approve any changes to their state's Constitution--no politician with their own bias [like individual arrogance in Texas or Mississippi] could make changes for their own political ends. AND--under those circumstances "we-the-people" would truly have 'our' say--our vote on issues directly would make a difference, because--we can't typically rely on those we voted for to keep their word.
****So going forward--what would happen if social issues went directly to the people nationally for a vote instead of presented as legal issues decided by the Supreme Court?
Why can't American citizens vote nationally to decide about ABORTION? Why can't American citizens vote nationally to decide about GUN SAFETY? Why can't American citizens vote nationally to decide about IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS and BORDER SECURITY? Why can't American citizens vote for TERM & AGE LIMITS...
You get the idea, but those who seek to keep authority and control in their [self-serving] hands will object--arguing these issues are too "complicated" to include on a Mid-Term Election ballot or General Election... Hogwash. Worded correctly without double negatives or deliberate complex jargon--'we' can and should take more of those arbitrary decisions away from people too easily influenced by campaign support contributions and their personal interests.
But for some reason we-sheep provide less supervision to total [political] strangers who: lie, cheat, enrich themselves, waste our tax dollars, flaunt standards and regulations we're expected to follow, send military to wars then don't support their needs when they return, dilute primary education, don't keep up with basic infrastructure/water/electric grid/bridges, and live as if they're entitled...
What's wrong with 'us'? Are 'we' that lazy? Should there [finally] be a 3rd viable political party in the United States like John Adams' Federalist Party?
Joe Biden is presently America's 47th President and in that historical lineup of forty-seven people how many have served with merit? Well--the likenesses of my picks can be seen at Mount Rushmore. That's it! In 231 years, only four presidents 'served' their country and served with distinction...
What does it take to lead unselfishly and serve with distinction? What does it take to fulfil the responsibilities of a Mayor, a County Commissioner, a Prime Minister, a Premier, a Governor, a President? What does it take? It takes--ETHICS...
