I got your 'it's not in the constitution' right here

Here's the thing, a 'direct democracy' includes public voting on laws, and on a nation of our size, that would be impractical, we still need the house. Since the senate today, is not consistent with the Senate of the founding fathers, and the fact that the evolution of two party dominance where one controls the rural, and the other controls the urban, as created an unfair balance of power, (you can name 20 states with 40 senators whose population will be less than that of California with it's 2 senators) so it's outlived it's purpose. So, I say either get rid of the Senate, or make the numbers of senators more equitable, like they are in the house. Of course, these things would require major constitutional amendments.

So, even if we voted for the president by popular vote, and maintained the house and senate, we would still be a representative democracy.

Its house of representatives that gives rise to the definition of representative democracy, not so much the popular vote. And we should definitely incrase the number of justices on the Supreme Court. this 6/3 court is not serving the interests of the will of the people. And, we need the popular vote.

Those who argue the founding fathers wanted minority rule, no, they didn't, per

[It is a] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22

 

Not impractical at all, but rather the most logical & sustainable choice, no matter the size. What's good for all is good for the individual. In fact, the larger the size of the group the greater is its potential; although population should still be maintained at a reasonable, sustainable level. For all to thrive, one must consider giving MORE space for nature & LESS space for human development.

The House is not necessary as a law-making entity. But it could potentially serve as a source of mediation & wise council. Of course this requires that its members be wise, logical, impartial, and loyal & beholden to the needs of all, and completely removed from money interests or even payment if the House is to function productively. No members currently fit that profile.

There are obstacles that need to be overcome:

(1) Too complex, and too many chiefs - not enough Indians:
We live in a monetary-capitalist system. Such a system invites unnecessary bureaucratic complications and time-consuming political & legal procedures. The entire system needs to be gutted & simplified to its bare bones if there is to be any meaningful change.
(2) Lack of education & critical thinking among the public:
This is easily remedied with free education for all at any level sans big-business/govt propaganda. If the people are educated, smart, and able to think independently their behavior will be less subject to the mercy of raging emotions (or those, like Trump, who would exploit such weaknesses).
(3) We have a big mess to clean up:
We're confronted with major psychological damage caused by systematic fear-based programming used to promote & maintain the monetary-capitalist paradigm. De-programming can be a difficult and not always successful effort. We also have an environmental mess.
(4) Strong resistance to change:
There will be strong resistance both from big-money/big-business interests, as well as the general population of people who would fear having "less" than they do now, fear of a loss of identity, and false notions of a "communistic/socialist" take-over. (NOTE: big government = big money)

Note that the above list only applies to our existing civilization. None of it would apply if a large faction of the world's population were to decide to establish a break-away civilization. (A version of this idea was actually attempted by Libya's former leader, Gaddafi, in his vision of a unified Africa under a single currency & army to resist the spread of Western hegemony. Gaddafi was therefore overthrown & murdered by the US/NATO factions.)

To divvy up the decision-making process into several branches under a SINGLE flag makes no logical sense. Doing so denies the supreme import of logic & wisdom. The result is poor decision-making that gain greater weight & momentum like a rolling snowball. These branches create internal factions that the various popular factions can seek to control, which then muddles the decision-making process. Essentially, the popular faction that has the most number of branch allies will win out, and hence no guarantee in place to ensure that decisions be always based on what is best/wisest for all. The consequences are persistent political struggle & domestic strife. And in a monetary-capitalist system this struggle is worsened because the decision-makers are beholden to an already parasitic capitalist agenda.

Keep in mind that what is best for all, first & foremost, is that which ensures the basic needs of all are met by way of the mutual benefit that exists within social groups (society). The needs of all should always & absolutely supersede the desires of not only the few, but particularly parasitic members (in this case, capitalists). Otherwise, the great benefit of the social group will be lost. Where else but a capitalist system will you find a farmer who owns hundreds of acres of land & grows tons of food, yet goes bankrupt because he can't sell off his harvest --- all the while, starving people cannot have access to that land to grow food they badly need?
Money has no value and exists for its own sake. Value was artificially attached to it by its makers as a means of owning/controlling real value, which gives the wealthy power & influence for no other reason but for possessing money. Money thus confers no bias towards social value & benefit, but rather what is most profitable. Money is therefore anti-social & anti-life, making it a parasitic enterprise.

I believe one part of the intent of the founder's establishment of the House & Senate and the 3 branches was to avoid tyranny by removing the decision-making (robbery) power of a single individual (eg, a monarchy). And the other part of their intent was to prevent such a potential tyranny from taking away their new-found wealth & authority.

You can look at the founders as a sort of "benevolent mafia" who scored big & worked as a team to immediately implement a system to secure their wealth & future earnings, as well as their new-found authority from the grasp of the monarchy. These seven men were the gentry --- men of high social status & many quite wealthy slaveholders --- but not the British aristocratic nobility. The nobility, by contrast, had it real good back home and had no interest in coming to the New World.

Thus the founders replaced a single, monarchical capitalist with a party capitalist system --- one which they, through "new money" wealth, held ultimate authority over. The elimination of the monetary system was never considered because, unlike native Americans, they didn't know how to live without it. They forged a capitalist-based Constitution --- eg, protection of private property & contract --- but with competing managers (public officials) & amendment options in its design as a means to ensure individual liberty (except, of course, for slaves & native Americans).

Note that in 1807, King George III signed into law the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in the British Empire, and all without a British civil war. America would not abolish slavery for close to another 60 years, and not without a civil war.

To seek meaningful change by way of amendments to the Constitution will only invite seemingly insurmountable resistance which is built in to a system designed to favor capitalist interests. The needs of the Many will always be at odds with the desires of the most wealthy Few. It is only through the efforts of socially minded people (not capitalists) that we have the necessary social programs & safety nets to relieve some of the burden of capitalism & prevent (or slow down) complete socio-economic & environmental collapse.

We must acknowledge our self-imposed prison keeping us chained to an old document as if it were the gold standard of how to run a society for mutual benefit. The Constitution provides no recommendation to transcend itself completely & to begin anew. It's purpose was to remain the core of all laws passed now and into the future as it defines how to conduct & institute national policies within the framework of & pursuant to a monetary-capitalist system.

It's framers sought to create a workable monetary/capitalist system in the absence of a King. But they could not conceive of the absence of a monetary/capitalist system altogether (nor one without slavery), despite stealing land from cultures that never needed a currency or capitalist system. This is a typical characteristic of a people raised within such a system. They lack any concept of how to live without money. So when the system finally collapses, society degrades to survival bartering, theft, violence, and chaos until such time that a monetary system can again be instituted. The notion of a fully cooperative money-less society as the logical alternative was completely beyond the comprehension of the founders.

The only "constitution" worth following, if there be one, would be one stating a simple exhortation, such as: "Commit to what is best, rather than what is expedient, for oneself. Think independently, but share ideas. Respect one's land, its resources & treasures. And cooperate with others towards mutual benefit. But, most importantly, never forsake a willingness to, at any moment, sacrifice that which one is for what one could become." (In the last sentence I borrowed a quote by Charles du Bois that I really resonate with.)

Sure, but only because we're still voting for a public official, rather than directly on domestic policy. Having a popular vote doesn't change that. Only by instituting a direct policy-based public caucus can we eliminate a representative democracy.

Also understand that a parliamentary system should be one in which its members need not be monitored like children. If they are to be true "representatives" they must always adhere to strict logic in determining what's best for all, and then implement it immediately. That's why I advocate the establishment of a "council of wise elders" who are unpaid & make no laws, but only provide mediation, guidance, and wise counsel. Unfortunately, the American collective is not anywhere near the mental or social level necessary to be open to such a departure from authoritarian rule.

The presidential popular vote would only ensure that the candidate with the majority of votes gets the win, and that, without the EC, no means would exist to counter this majority win. I never said it would remove a representative democracy. Both congressional & presidential elections comprise our so-called representative democracy. Every other nation that holds elections for its leader uses only the popular vote. It seems European nations (among others) are always more progressive & ahead of the US.

The SC is a sham & a waste of taxpayer money. They're as worthless as sunscreen on an army tank.

Hamilton was speaking of the majority of state legislature votes vis-a-vis the Senate, not a majority of the people's votes (as in a presidential election). Hence, with a representative democracy there's never a guarantee that the will of the majority of the people will win out. (A national policy-based popular vote/caucus would remove the problems of a representative democracy.)

Further...

When Hamilton wrote that, the largest state had less than ten times the population of the smallest. Now that ratio is sixty-six to one. Sadly, though, he underestimated the forbearance of the larger states. They have yet to “revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller.” But at least they are beginning to weary of the tyranny of the filibuster. [SOURCE]