[geeks] just to stir things up, a few predictions

[Mike Meredith]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread (I've been offline for 15 days), but
...

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:27:44 -0400, velociraptor wrote:
> You need to recall the context in which the system was designed. The
> "founding fathers" were trying to come up with a system that which
> would balance the needs of the few against the tyranny of the many,
> having just come out of a situation in which the many (read: England)
> quite literally "lorded over" the colonies.

Technically, what passed for "democracy" in the UK of the time meant
that the privileged few "lorded over" everyone in the UK as well. Even
after the reforms of 1834 (? I'm not one for remembering exact dates
although this one is quite important), only those who met property
ownership qualifications could vote.

> Allowing the say of the "common man" in what went on in government had
> not really happened since the Greeks and Romans had been around.  From
> that standpoint, it was actually quite risky.

It was certainly viewed as being risky, but there are a few other
examples of democratic or representative rule around Europe at the time.
Not always at a national level, but still there. Examples including the
Swiss cantons, some of the Spanish fueros, Venice, etc.