I personally wouldn't want Direct Democracy for Electing the president either, tbbh

No direct democracies

Besides, without the current system rust belt and central states would be marginalized out of existence. At best is taxation without representation - at worst it's a recipe for civil conflict.

I'm too afraid of the average person and their lack of knowledge to trust them.

@Inept Chronicler There is a difference between using Direct Democracy to Elect and using Direct Democracy as a System of Gov't

Like France, for instance, elects their Presidents through Direct Democracy but they're still a Congressional Republic run like the US

Yes their is because as a consequence all the cities control the power and deciede the elections

Fucking the rural areas

That's actually untrue; been debunked numerous times

But even then, that's why I personally wouldn't have the President be directly elected

I favour a Parliamentary System like the UK and India

oh fuck no

The US can already do that

Not that checks on power matter over time, as we have seen, I would think someone with unilateral military power would be the person you'd least want elected through direct election.

My friend has told me horror stories from when he lived there

It's not even bad

Take the Congressional Election that the US has, and just use that to elect your leader

Unlike the EC (which has a 90% Popular Victor to Electoral Victor), the US Congress has a 97% Success

What do you think about the idea that only net taxpayers should be allowed to vote?

Even if morally correct, I disavow any system that infringes on Constitutional Rights.

That being said, I'll fully endorse voter ID laws. It's 2019, not 1919. Everyone has an ID.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/359014/original/2016_House_Districts_by_Presidential_Party_Winner_Net_Change_vs_2012.png?1485791238

^The US Election would be divided like this

Basically, the Leader of the Party to Win the Most Seats in Congress becomes President

"Even if morally correct, I disavow any system that infringes on Constitutional Rights." That's a weird position. Pragmatism?

@Inept Chronicler Pretty straightforward, eh?

Works nicely too

And it lets us vote Third Parties because those parties can now freely hold seats in Congress

Not a bad idea. Breaks the electoral college into districts instead of states, am I reading that correctly?

Yep

One District gets one Vote

It would increase representation which is good.

While only net taxpayers should have a say in elected officials, it breaks the idea of every US citizen having a constitutional right to vote for an elected official.

It's how the UK, Canada, Australia, India, NZ, and Japan do things

I don't really care about what is or is not currently law, just what works.

hmmm

And I'm against any proposal that represses representation. DC is a great example of taxation with representation.

If you're not paying taxes, you're not being taxed without representation.

It eliminates votes that press for more entitlement spending.

True. But people need to climb the social-economic ladder to attain the position of net taxpayer.

AKA those with skin in the game get to vote.