I have generally thought that they were a good thing.

Bryant

but, political Parties have become so ingrained in our system of government that Party politics, by a simple majority, can over-ride all checks and balances for benefit of Party. For example, we have a Republican majority by numbers, but in reality, they will ignore the Constitution and give their elected leader dictatorial powers. Conflicts of interest, which is clearly forbidden in our Constitution, are well on their way to being ignored, as the would-be dictator does business with friends and enemies alike.

Or to put it another way the issue is that we have one party willing to do anything to get their way politically and another party that tries to play by the rules to a certain extent. But that's not necessarily a problem with the idea of checks and balances; if anything they still have some effect; imagine if trump was really let off the rails to do whatever he wanted. As it is there will be at least some push back from Democrats (although, feeling cynical these days, I suspect it won't be as much resistance as their should be).

On the other hand there is something to be said for a parlementary system elected by the popular vote. As right now on a state level there are many elections in which one side or the other basically has no chance of winning. Perhaps it would be better if the seats in congress were divided according to the number of votes each side got instead of a winner take all system (like we have in the Senate and in many if not most house races).

Bryant

The electoral college is as anachronistic as the 3/5ths rule.

Big states have limited power to sway the election. It's supposed to be a balance between cities and rural areas.

You don't want checks and balances either? You're arguing to give Trump free reign?

I don't think we have them at present.

Not only is the "electoral college" a possible flaw in our Constitution, but the idea that there are "checks and balances" to somehow protect our citizenry is also a flaw?

Sounds like you're arguing checks and balances are a flaw.

But I don't like it.

one party rule when the Ds have both the Executive and Legislative branches. When that happens, there may be de facto failure of check and balance, though still Congress may disagree with the president on things and still be some sort of check.

Orange Cheeto is not a normal party member though, so he may not get all he wants out of Congress or Congress may not always have his rubber stamp, though he will be a puppet of somebody, just remains to be seen who, as he can't do the job on his own.

I think that's why the Ryans and McConnells of Congress would prefer Pence and might use the 25th Amendment against Cheeto, as soon as he does something really insane that makes them think they can invoke it.

Our current system of popularly elected electors is not nearly as old as the nation.

I do not place the holy reverence on this doc that others do. but there are too many crazy fucks swimming in the pond these days

The only one who wasn't a republican was John Quincy Adams. He was a Federalist. Every other time it's been a Republican who won.

The Democratic Party is and always has been antithesis to the ideas of the Founders. Their major worry was that the people would make decisions in a democracy that would harm the interests of the wealthy and the elite.

I agree--when the foxes are appointing the watchdogs guarding the hen-house and they only choose from other foxes, yeah. The Founders assumed reasonable, thoughtful, educated people would prevent fools, liars and theives from taking over. Silly Founders...they didn't count on long years of cunning subversion.

Stacking the court is making a mockery of any impartiality.

Its a deeply flawed system.

Remember they killed the Voting Rights Act?

Look what happened immediately after that - within hours if not minutes.