Not as a Voting Method

No, that's actually inaccurate. The founding father's understood the dangers of pure democracies, fearing the tyranny of the majority. That's why were a Democratic Republic.

It doesn't matter whether or not the founders favored it, the question is *is it a good idea*?

We're talking about electing a person

Not running a country

Ah, now I see your point.

Hell the founders didn;t even want everyone to vote

You look at mayors and district congressmen and senators

They're voted in with Direct Democracy

The idea was for Presidents to also be elected that way

They only wanted land lords, and bussissness owners to vote becuase they had skin in the game

At first

That was the Temporary Solution

Since the country was unstable after the Revolution

They wanted to smooth things out first before letting regular people Vote

Which didn't happen until Andrew Jackson

Direct democracy wouldn't be feasible in today's politics due to districting. Jefferson's manual of parliamentary practice explains his position on having elected representatives.

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