Driverless Cars are Insane.

[1maGoh]

Here’s the reality: driverless cars are going to be THE thing. Car ownership in 10 years is going to be rare and it won’t exist except for collectibles in 20. Bank on it.

There are literally BILLIONS being poured into “cars as a service”.

Effectively, there is likely to be at least three tiers:

1) Service membership where you have 100% use of the vehicle, it’ll domicile with you and use a designated parking spot after dropping you off at work, grocery or wherever you went. It’ll then pick you up, drop you off and park itself where you’ve designated. This is where Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Ford, GM are aiming.

2) Service membership where you have A car at your disposal when you need it. It’ll pick you up at a designated tome and drop you off. Another of a fleet of similar vehicles will pick you up and drop you off, etc. The car will simply be in constant use until it isn’t needed and it will return to a depot lot until it is needed. This is where Uber is aiming.

3) Service membership where you have what amounts to a ride sharing service.
You may be carpooling to work or the grocery, but it’s a relatively direct path. There may be different tiers with unlimited use and another with limited uses. I can see a lot of public transportation being redirected toward subsidizing these kinds of services for elderly passengers as it’s way more efficient than current van services. Medical vans would still have a person on board for loading and assistance, they just wouldn’t be driving.

Also, expect for municipalities including super congested areas to be “driverless zones”. Areas like lower Manhattan, downtown LA, etc.

And here’s how it’s going to happen.

Once Level 4 automation is out... and it’s only 1-3 years since away, the actuarial tables will show such a staggering difference between the safety of autonomous vehicles versus driven cars that the insurance rates to drive will spike...obscenely. It will be untenable for people of modest means to drive.

Essentially, it will be insurance that drives the change. It WILL happen...and soon.

You’ll have no choice. It’s not just coming, it’s already been decided. It’s here and in beta and it’s only a question of WHEN it happens.

Wife and I bought a 2018 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring and it’s an amazing ride. And... we’re clear it’s the last car we’ll ever buy.

The only thing everyone from Tesla to Uber to Hertz is trying to work out are the logistics.

This is the most inevitable change since the adoption of the automobile and it’ll happen faster. MUCH faster. Bank on it.

That sounds like it's awful. More later.

 

[Mackeyser]

That sounds like it's awful. More later.

Same could be said for smart phones, social media and other recent disruptions.

Doesn’t make them any less inevitable.

I’m more of a what is and what will be person.

I know how I’d like it to be, but I function better being ahead of the curve knowing what’s coming. And this is coming.

 

[Loyal]

Here’s the reality: driverless cars are going to be THE thing. Car ownership in 10 years is going to be rare and it won’t exist except for collectibles in 20. Bank on it.

There are literally BILLIONS being poured into “cars as a service”.

Effectively, there is likely to be at least three tiers:

1) Service membership where you have 100% use of the vehicle, it’ll domicile with you and use a designated parking spot after dropping you off at work, grocery or wherever you went. It’ll then pick you up, drop you off and park itself where you’ve designated. This is where Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Ford, GM are aiming.

2) Service membership where you have A car at your disposal when you need it. It’ll pick you up at a designated tome and drop you off. Another of a fleet of similar vehicles will pick you up and drop you off, etc. The car will simply be in constant use until it isn’t needed and it will return to a depot lot until it is needed. This is where Uber is aiming.

3) Service membership where you have what amounts to a ride sharing service.
You may be carpooling to work or the grocery, but it’s a relatively direct path. There may be different tiers with unlimited use and another with limited uses. I can see a lot of public transportation being redirected toward subsidizing these kinds of services for elderly passengers as it’s way more efficient than current van services. Medical vans would still have a person on board for loading and assistance, they just wouldn’t be driving.

Also, expect for municipalities including super congested areas to be “driverless zones”. Areas like lower Manhattan, downtown LA, etc.

And here’s how it’s going to happen.

Once Level 4 automation is out... and it’s only 1-3 years since away, the actuarial tables will show such a staggering difference between the safety of autonomous vehicles versus driven cars that the insurance rates to drive will spike...obscenely. It will be untenable for people of modest means to drive.

Essentially, it will be insurance that drives the change. It WILL happen...and soon.

You’ll have no choice. It’s not just coming, it’s already been decided. It’s here and in beta and it’s only a question of WHEN it happens.

Wife and I bought a 2018 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring and it’s an amazing ride. And... we’re clear it’s the last car we’ll ever buy.

The only thing everyone from Tesla to Uber to Hertz is trying to work out are the logistics.

This is the most inevitable change since the adoption of the automobile and it’ll happen faster. MUCH faster. Bank on it.

Who needs a new car? Who need's insurance? I'll let Millennials pay for it!:cheers:

 

[RamFan503]

Here’s the reality: driverless cars are going to be THE thing. Car ownership in 10 years is going to be rare and it won’t exist except for collectibles in 20. Bank on it.

There are literally BILLIONS being poured into “cars as a service”.

Effectively, there is likely to be at least three tiers:

1) Service membership where you have 100% use of the vehicle, it’ll domicile with you and use a designated parking spot after dropping you off at work, grocery or wherever you went. It’ll then pick you up, drop you off and park itself where you’ve designated. This is where Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Ford, GM are aiming.

2) Service membership where you have A car at your disposal when you need it. It’ll pick you up at a designated tome and drop you off. Another of a fleet of similar vehicles will pick you up and drop you off, etc. The car will simply be in constant use until it isn’t needed and it will return to a depot lot until it is needed. This is where Uber is aiming.

3) Service membership where you have what amounts to a ride sharing service.
You may be carpooling to work or the grocery, but it’s a relatively direct path. There may be different tiers with unlimited use and another with limited uses. I can see a lot of public transportation being redirected toward subsidizing these kinds of services for elderly passengers as it’s way more efficient than current van services. Medical vans would still have a person on board for loading and assistance, they just wouldn’t be driving.

Also, expect for municipalities including super congested areas to be “driverless zones”. Areas like lower Manhattan, downtown LA, etc.

And here’s how it’s going to happen.

Once Level 4 automation is out... and it’s only 1-3 years since away, the actuarial tables will show such a staggering difference between the safety of autonomous vehicles versus driven cars that the insurance rates to drive will spike...obscenely. It will be untenable for people of modest means to drive.

Essentially, it will be insurance that drives the change. It WILL happen...and soon.

You’ll have no choice. It’s not just coming, it’s already been decided. It’s here and in beta and it’s only a question of WHEN it happens.

Wife and I bought a 2018 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring and it’s an amazing ride. And... we’re clear it’s the last car we’ll ever buy.

The only thing everyone from Tesla to Uber to Hertz is trying to work out are the logistics.

This is the most inevitable change since the adoption of the automobile and it’ll happen faster. MUCH faster. Bank on it.

While I don't doubt your scenario in general, I find a lot of timing, logistical, and financial issues with it.

The only place your scenario plays out is in fairly densely populated cities. Even then, the idea that a large percentage of cars will make single trips to pick up people at a singular location and drop them at another singular location during rush hour is unlikely to either work or collect the confidence of the every day commuter.

The idea that private ownership of vehicles will be rare in 10 years is a pipe dream (or nightmare). I could see many people switching to driverless cars for their transportation needs - many will likely hire a service.

Now rural areas will present an even more difficult situation. People in rural areas will be even more resistant, the cost for the service would be outrageously expensive while trying to service areas where incomes are lower by in large, people use their vehicles for far more than transportation, and I highly doubt Uber is going to be putting gun and bow racks in their cute little transport vehicles.

As to insurance companies controlling this... this makes no sense to me. Maybe you can explain why they would give up millions of customers that they can pretty much control the rates on and trade that for a few large transportation companies that will control THEM and will pay them pennies on the dollar compared to what they are pulling in now. Insurance companies don't raise rates because they want fewer customers. They raise them in order to achieve a guaranteed return. Hell - these transportation companies would simply bond themselves and do without the insurance companies in your scenario. We're talking Google, Amazon, GM, etc... - not some cab company.

There are almost 300 million registered vehicles in the US. Let's just say best case scenario is that driverless cars start to take a significant market share in 5 years. They won't - but let's just use that timing. Displacing 300 million cars with driverless cars will take not only a way to recycle the cars at ridiculous rates, it will take a huge mind shift of car owners that will fight giving up their cars even in the face of increasing insurance costs (which I also doubt your suggestion that they will price themselves out of business), forced cooperation from the government at all levels, buy backs from the federal government ala that outrageously effective cash for clunker scam, rerouting and redesigning of streets in cities, etc...

So while I believe that driverless cars will likely dominate the landscape some day - especially in the cities, I am going to guess I will be driving until I am so old I scare myself.

 

[Riverumbbq]

While I don't doubt your scenario in general, I find a lot of timing, logistical, and financial issues with it.

The only place your scenario plays out is in fairly densely populated cities. Even then, the idea that a large percentage of cars will make single trips to pick up people at a singular location and drop them at another singular location during rush hour is unlikely to either work or collect the confidence of the every day commuter.

The idea that private ownership of vehicles will be rare in 10 years is a pipe dream (or nightmare). I could see many people switching to driverless cars for their transportation needs - many will likely hire a service.

Now rural areas will present an even more difficult situation. People in rural areas will be even more resistant, the cost for the service would be outrageously expensive while trying to service areas where incomes are lower by in large, people use their vehicles for far more than transportation, and I highly doubt Uber is going to be putting gun and bow racks in their cute little transport vehicles.

As to insurance companies controlling this... this makes no sense to me. Maybe you can explain why they would give up millions of customers that they can pretty much control the rates on and trade that for a few large transportation companies that will control THEM and will pay them pennies on the dollar compared to what they are pulling in now. Insurance companies don't raise rates because they want fewer customers. They raise them in order to achieve a guaranteed return. Hell - these transportation companies would simply bond themselves and do without the insurance companies in your scenario. We're talking Google, Amazon, GM, etc... - not some cab company.

There are almost 300 million registered vehicles in the US. Let's just say best case scenario is that driverless cars start to take a significant market share in 5 years. They won't - but let's just use that timing. Displacing 300 million cars with driverless cars will take not only a way to recycle the cars at ridiculous rates, it will take a huge mind shift of car owners that will fight giving up their cars even in the face of increasing insurance costs (which I also doubt your suggestion that they will price themselves out of business), forced cooperation from the government at all levels, buy backs from the federal government ala that outrageously effective cash for clunker scam, rerouting and redesigning of streets in cities, etc...

So while I believe that driverless cars will likely dominate the landscape some day - especially in the cities, I am going to guess I will be driving until I am so old I scare myself.

You bring up good points, but this shift in modern transportation methods is coming, although I personally believe the time frame @Mackeyser foresees is a bit optimistic. It may not be so much that insurance rates rise even more dramatically, though they will surely rise, it may be more about the many consumers who are seeing a drastic decline in insurance rates for driverless vehicles and will want to enjoy this extra benefit. Higher fuel taxes on carbon emitting vehicles will also take a larger bite in the future.
As for the higher cost of living in rural areas, those folks already pay a premium due to the higher amount of travel & time required, so they understand that fuel consumption and wear & tear are associated with those extra miles needed to get anywhere. Farm & Ranch vehicles are likely to receive some form of exemption, at least in the short term, but so long as rural areas are equipped with the means to recharge an electric automobile (driver or driverless), they won't escape saving on fuel costs any more than their urban cousins. jmo.

 

[Loyal]

. Farm & Ranch vehicles are likely to receive some form of exemption, at least in the short term, but so long as rural areas are equipped with the means to recharge an electric automobile (driver or driverless), they won't escape saving on fuel costs any more than their urban cousins. jmo.

You assume a state of thoughtfulness and nimble ability by the state government towards those in the rural areas, to relieve their stress, which doesn't currently exist. Especially in California....The high fuel prices benefit people in cities (possibly lower pollution and taxes for roads), while those in rural areas tend to live farther away from things and often need trucks to do their work. They pay more while earning less than their city dwelling cousins, and there is no desire to relieve them currently. Why do we think they will try to do so in the future?

 

[LesBaker]

Same could be said for smart phones, social media and other recent disruptions.

Well, the world certainly could have done just fine without social media. It's been a scourge on civilized society IMO.

Displacing 300 million cars with driverless cars will take not only a way to recycle the cars at ridiculous rates, it will take a huge mind shift of car owners that will fight giving up their cars even in the face of increasing insurance costs (which I also doubt your suggestion that they will price themselves out of business), forced cooperation from the government at all levels, buy backs from the federal government ala that outrageously effective cash for clunker scam, rerouting and redesigning of streets in cities, etc...

So while I believe that driverless cars will likely dominate the landscape some day - especially in the cities, I am going to guess I will be driving until I am so old I scare myself.

Out of everything you said this is the most valid point. It would take years, more than 10, if the technology was already perfected and good to go right now to responsibly displace 300 million vehicles.

And that's just the US. Globally the number must be a couple of billion if the US is 300 million.

I'm not against technology, I embrace it and have forever. I don't want to have a car that I can't control when I want to. I would not be opposed on a long trip or even a daily commute in traffic to ceding control but I want some sort of sensors in the steering wheel that would shut off the autopilot feature when one or both of my hands touched the steering wheel.

Lets not forget the lesson we just learned from the terrible Boeing tragedies. There has to be an override that is flawless. Which would mean there would have to be between 3-5 ways to override the system.

 

[Akrasian]

I suspect it'll be accompanied by an improvement in the mass transit options too. I used to live in a small town in Oklahoma. The passenger train to OKC went once a day - if there had been better options, with driverless cars to take me around, I would rarely have made that drive. For work, take a bus to the urban center, have one of the fleet of driverless cars take you in and then pick you up at the end of the day. Likely won't cost more than owning a car, upkeep, sudden repairs, gas, insurance, etc

 

[LesBaker]

As for the higher cost of living in rural areas, those folks already pay a premium due to the higher amount of travel & time, so they understand that fuel consumption and wear & tear are associated with those extra miles required to get anywhere.

Some years back, the Great Recession destroyed it, I had an event production business. One woman that worked for me drove this monstrous gas guzzler of an SUV. I think it was made by Chrysler. It was fucking GIGANTIC and got single digit MPG in the city. Everyone at the office thought it was funny because she was about 5' 2" and 100 pounds. One third of that 100 pounds were her tits by the way. So it was a giant thing driven by a tiny thing.

She was looking into buying a house after working for me for a few years. She was earning good money. She found a killer deal and pulled the trigger on it.

A two story beauty on a small lake with loads of front and back yard (that went up to a hill) and lots of space for even a family of 4, though she just had herself and her dog.

Then gas prices flew through the roof. And I think we all recall that, gas prices kept going up and up in chunks. I remember taking a picture of a fill-up I did that was over 70 bucks!.

Anyway, she regretted buying the house because the cost of gas was eating away at her disposable income. Even going to the grocery store was a pain in the ass because of how remote the house was. People who live "way out there" pay a price.

 

[Riverumbbq]

You assume a state of thoughtfulness and nimble ability by the state government towards those in the rural areas, to relieve their stress, which doesn't currently exist. Especially in California....The high fuel prices benefit people in cities (possibly lower pollution and taxes for roads), while those in rural areas tend to live farther away from things and often need trucks to do their work. They pay more while earning less than their city dwelling cousins, and there is no desire to relieve them currently. Why do we think they will try to do so in the future?

While there remains a vast difference in political aims between urban & rural citizens, California farms are the breadbasket for much of the nation, doubtful to me that Sacramento has any desire to change that.
I'm not certain what you mean by 'stress', but American citizens have a choice in where they choose to live, and each come with their own set of positives and negatives, whether it be housing, utility & insurance costs or those costs associated with living in or near a forest or the wide open plains. While California has the great weather, great coastlines & great soil which appeal to so many, we also practice a form of democracy where voters decide elections and where the majority rules, ... and this can be frustrating for those who don't agree with the outcome.
The choice is still in the hands of the consumer, if you choose to drive a truck and can't get an exemption, then be prepared to pay for your personal desires. It's not like Uncle Sam is coming to take your truck away from you, but while other citizens enjoy lower costs based on their transportation decisions, understand that ultimately we all pay for the choices we make. jmo.

 

[Loyal]

While there remains a vast difference in political aims between urban & rural citizens, California farms are the breadbasket for much of the nation, doubtful to me that Sacramento has any desire to change that.
I'm not certain what you mean by 'stress', but American citizens have a choice in where they choose to live, and each come with their own set of positives and negatives, whether it be housing, utility & insurance costs or those costs associated with living in or near a forest or the wide open plains. While California has the great weather, great coastlines & great soil which appeal to so many, we also practice a form of democracy where voters decide elections and where the majority rules, ... and this can be frustrating for those who don't agree with the outcome.
The choice is still in the hands of the consumer, if you choose to drive a truck and can't get an exemption, then be prepared to pay for your personal desires. It's not like Uncle Sam is coming to take your truck away from you, but while other citizens enjoy lower costs based on their transportation decisions, understand that ultimately we all pay for the choices we make. jmo.

I don't disagree with you on much of what you say, but the desires of urban dwellers will always trump the rural people because of sheer numbers, and the urban dwellers will say "tough" if you don't like it. "You" chose to not conform to our ideas. *shrugs

 

[Riverumbbq]

she regretted buying the house because the cost of gas was eating away at her disposable income. Even going to the grocery store was a pain in the ass because of how remote the house was. People who live "way out there" pay a price.

So she preferred her giant gas guzzling SUV to her home where a different mode of transportation might return most of her disposable income ? Again, ... we pay for our choices in life.

 

[Riverumbbq]

I don't disagree with you on much of what you say, but the desires of urban dwellers will always trump the rural people because of sheer numbers, and the urban dwellers will say "tough" if you don't like it. "You" chose to not conform to our ideas. *shrugs

Of course, lets not forget that at the national level we have an electoral system which by far rewards the rural voter over majority rule.

 

[Loyal]

Of course, lets not forget that at the national level we have an electoral system which by far rewards the rural voter over majority rule.

Yes, and that's why the founders made it that way. They feared the tyranny of the masses, over the minority. We have never had a purely democratic method in this country. It has always been a democratic republic since the Constitution was ratified.

 

[Riverumbbq]

Yes, and that's why the founders made it that way. They feared the tyranny of the masses, over the minority. We have never had a purely democratic method in this country. It has always been a democratic republic since the Constitution was ratified.

So the argument you make in favor of the electoral process nationally haunts you regionally because "the tyranny of the masses, over the minority" doesn't effectively work for you in California ? Am I understanding this correctly then, that the 'tyranny' of minority rule is no longer a thing ?

 

[Loyal]

From Quora, which is pretty much accurate. True democarcy

So the argument you make in favor of the electoral process nationally haunts you regionally because "the tyranny of the masses, over the minority" doesn't effectively work for you in California ? Am I understanding this correctly then, that the 'tyranny' of minority rule is no longer a thing ?

No, you don't understand me. We were speaking locally in California, and then you used a federal example, which doesn't apply. I was just riffing off what you said in a generality. A State has it's own powers to use the tyranny of the masses to enforce its state-wide agenda.

 

[Loyal]

From Quora, this explains what the founders were thinking in the 19th century.

"Just as America’s founding fathers were afraid of tyranny, they were also afraid of complete democracy.

True democracy was a good idea in theory. People would gather together, have an informed debate, and then all vote to make a decision. However, democracy in practice has issues. Through the examples of Rome and Athens, it became apparent that average people were just as capable of being corrupted and oppressive as single rulers.

They could be greedy, oppressive, vindictive, uneducated, possessive, etc. All of the traits that made tyranny undesirable, made complete democracy undesirable.

The founding fathers feared “tyranny by majority” whereby 51% of people could decide the fate of the other 49% without any roadblocks. Uneducated citizens could manipulate the system once they realized they could vote themselves benefits.

What good is that?"
https://www.quora.com/Why-were-the-...-did-they-take-to-prevent-it-from-taking-hold

 

[Riverumbbq]

From Quora, this explains what the founders were thinking in the 19th century.

"Just as America’s founding fathers were afraid of tyranny, they were also afraid of complete democracy.

True democracy was a good idea in theory. People would gather together, have an informed debate, and then all vote to make a decision. However, democracy in practice has issues. Through the examples of Rome and Athens, it became apparent that average people were just as capable of being corrupted and oppressive as single rulers.

They could be greedy, oppressive, vindictive, uneducated, possessive, etc. All of the traits that made tyranny undesirable, made complete democracy undesirable.

The founding fathers feared “tyranny by majority” whereby 51% of people could decide the fate of the other 49% without any roadblocks. Uneducated citizens could manipulate the system once they realized they could vote themselves benefits.

What good is that?"
https://www.quora.com/Why-were-the-...-did-they-take-to-prevent-it-from-taking-hold

So again, the so-called 'tyranny' of the majority somehow is favored over the tyranny of the minority. Of course, the Founders never heard of Pacs where a few ultra-wealthy businessmen with agendas could funnel great sums of money for political expediency.


ASK FACTCHECK
The Reason for the Electoral College


By Joe Miller

Posted on February 11, 2008

Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the most votes (that is, a plurality) in the state receives all of the state’s electoral votes. The number of electors in each state is the sum of its U.S. senators and its U.S. representatives. (The District of Columbia has three electoral votes, which is the number of senators and representatives it would have if it were permitted representation in Congress.) The electors meet in their respective states 41 days after the popular election. There, they cast a ballot for president and a second for vice president. A candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes to be elected president.

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.

As the 2000 election reminded us, the Electoral College does make it possible for a candidate to win the popular vote and still not become president. But that is less a product of the Electoral College and more a product of the way states apportion electors. In every state but Maine and Nebraska, electors are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. So if a candidate wins a state by even a narrow margin, he or she wins all of the state’s electoral votes. The winner-take-all system is not federally mandated; states are free to allocate their electoral votes as they wish.

The Electoral College was not the only Constitutional limitation on direct democracy, though we have discarded most of those limitations. Senators were initially to be appointed by state legislatures, and states were permitted to ban women from voting entirely. Slaves got an even worse deal, as a slave officially was counted as just three-fifths of a person. The 14th Amendment abolished the three-fifths rule and granted (male) former slaves the right to vote. The 17th Amendment made senators subject to direct election, and the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.

– Joe Miller

Sources
Hamilton, Alexander. “Federalist No. 68.” The Federalist Papers [1788]. Accessed at The Library of Congress Web site. 28 Jan. 2008.

Madison, James. “Federalist No. 10.” The Federalist Papers [1787]. Accessed at The Library of Congress Web site. 28 Jan. 2008.

de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America, vol. 1. Accessed at the University of Virginia Department of American Studies Web site. 28 Jan. 2008.

Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site, FAQ, 11 Feb. 2008.

 

[Riverumbbq]

From Quora, this explains what the founders were thinking in the 19th century.

"Just as America’s founding fathers were afraid of tyranny, they were also afraid of complete democracy.

True democracy was a good idea in theory. People would gather together, have an informed debate, and then all vote to make a decision. However, democracy in practice has issues. Through the examples of Rome and Athens, it became apparent that average people were just as capable of being corrupted and oppressive as single rulers.

They could be greedy, oppressive, vindictive, uneducated, possessive, etc. All of the traits that made tyranny undesirable, made complete democracy undesirable.

The founding fathers feared “tyranny by majority” whereby 51% of people could decide the fate of the other 49% without any roadblocks. Uneducated citizens could manipulate the system once they realized they could vote themselves benefits.

So, you have a problem with 'average people' ?

Please tell me which Founders are responsible for stating the above opinions.

 

[Loyal]

So again, the so-called 'tyranny' of the majority somehow is favored over the tyranny of the minority. Of course, the Founders never heard of Pacs where a few ultra-wealthy businessmen with agendas could funnel great sums of money for political expediency.

What you call "tyranny of the minority" is what is also not being submerged by the tyranny of the majority. Depends on your perspective. BTW...the rules have been clear since the founding of the country. You have to win the heartland and the cities to win the Presidency according to the rules as they have been since the founding of the country.


ASK FACTCHECK
The Reason for the Electoral College


By Joe Miller



...As the 2000 election reminded us, the Electoral College does make it possible for a candidate to win the popular vote and still not become president.

Yeah...this "historian" is of selective memory. What of the Presidential election of Hayes over Tilden in 1872? How about Harrison over Cleveland in 1888? This isn't a recent thing

But that is less a product of the Electoral College and more a product of the way states apportion electors. In every state but Maine and Nebraska, electors are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. So if a candidate wins a state by even a narrow margin, he or she wins all of the state’s electoral votes. The winner-take-all system is not federally mandated; states are free to allocate their electoral votes as they wish.

The Electoral College was not the only Constitutional limitation on direct democracy, though we have discarded most of those limitations. Senators were initially to be appointed by state legislatures, and states were permitted to ban women from voting entirely. Slaves got an even worse deal, as a slave officially was counted as just three-fifths of a person. The 14th Amendment abolished the three-fifths rule and granted (male) former slaves the right to vote. The 17th Amendment made senators subject to direct election, and the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.

– Joe Miller

Yes, the Constitution and the the people who wrote it were not perfect, which is why the Amendment process was included. IF the country can get behind changing the Electoral College process by Constitutional Amendment, then so be it.