I agree. In corporations, there are directors elected by voting of the stockholders, and the directors are in chargee of running the company. There are not hundreds of directors though. Maybe a dozen or so. What we have now is somewhat like that, but with hundreds of congressmen and 100 senators that are polarized in terms of two parties, and they vote on how to tax and control everyone. There is no buying of stock. If you live here, you are bound by the rules they set.

Somehow I think it should be more of a republic where the constitution is SET, and the government only operates within those specific bounds. Election would be to promote efficiency of operation, not the passing of new laws.

We are supposed to have a republic, not a democracy. But the citizens must be allowed to vote. Of course, it would be better if the Constitution restricted the government (state and local as well as Federal) to its proper functions: to protect man (includes woman and child) against force and violence (fraud being a kind of force), and to punish same, and did not leave the rights of man to be trampled over every time someone got a big enough gang.
That would abolish a large part of government that now exists, including public, government-financed and government-operated education (except maybe for technical training in the military, and police academies), and leave citizens to do things on their own. And then you wouldn't have people getting in a gang and voting away their neighbors' rights every time they got a whim (such as not liking the paint job on a neighbor's house, etc).

If dead means brain dead, they already vote

Maybe the whole idea of voting in a democracy is faulty. Set the constitution and thats IT.

“The dead have a right to vote!”
-Z-Nation

The notion that the government should prescribe the citizen's ideology before allowing him to vote is a very dangerous one.---And look what was done with "literacy tests" in the lily-white South.

Hey, Circuitguy...don't sell the ladies short! Clara Barton was 82 when she formed the American Red Cross!

Dobrien, you are so right on! Ms Hilliary is much more devious and a whole lot smarter than Elizabeth. Don't doubt that for a minute. She was working her 'phone right in front of us, reading her emails, while we watched on TV!!!!

The movie adaptation of Primary Colors suggests it's living with Bill Clinton's misbehavior.

Hahahah! The explanation just occurred to me....it's those INDIAN genes!

"there is only one year and eight months' difference in their ages. "
Wow, I didn't know that. Clinton really seems older to me.

Elizabeth Warren idiotically and falsely claimed Native American heritage and earned the title "Pocahontas" from Trump.

Your reference to Ayn Rand is a good one. I often think of women as being more nurturing than men and more likely to vote "yes" for the great socialist welfare state, but then I think of Rand. Then I think of men like Marx or Bernie Sanders, so there you have it.

Me dino just had a vision of a cartoon Uncle Sam putting a .44 Magnum into his mouth and pulling the trigger.

I think the whole idea of democracy isnt that great either- at least when it comes down to voting. There should be some sort of vetting going on before getting the power to vote. Some people are just not qualified to vote on important things, s I am sure you can see during the 2016 election. Half the people actually voted for Hillary, which amazes me. If I expand my comment, it really applies to universal suffrage, not necessarily based on sex at all. But, we would like the people to vote to be reasonably intelligent and knowledgeable so they can analyze the issues rationally. Emotionally driven people of both sexes do not make very good decisions in the voting booth.

That doesn't make any sense. Especially for anyone in Galt's Gulch, which concept actually was originated by a woman.
Women can understand logic and individual rights as well as men. Also, men, being physically stronger, are more likely to lose their tempers and come to blows in some cases, rather than to reason things out.
I don't like either Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren. (Isn't she the one who claimed to be black on the score of having a minuscule percentage of the ancestry through DNA?) But that doesn't mean the suffrage should be restricted.

I think Hillary, as she has the players in place to pull all the Constitutional rights we count on, from day one. Elizabeth has a big big mouth, but not much in the way of facts and shady contacts, to rival Hillary. They could not even work together, two big egos, mass destruction.

It's a draw. Elizabeth is a late blooming socialist, but Hillary was very socialist in college. That's why Hillary has been showing signs of making a third try, because now she can go into full throated socialist war cry, rather than masking her desires in muddled left of center policy statements. She really did despise Bill's centrism, and would be delighted to come out of the closet.

Don’t worry, my computer often thinks it can spell better than me! Most times it gets it wrong.

"an ideology", sorry for the typo

very bad idea. Women and men just are different. I think that genes in women favor stronger emotions, and genes in men favor weaker emotions and stronger thought processes.

That isnt a condemnation of either sex, just an acceptance of what is. No one expects a cat to act like a dog, or vice-versa. To think that genes dont affect what a brain does is just ignoring biology

Hillary, because she would sell our govenment out quickly for contributions to the clinton foundation. Warren would just be a moron and straddle business with useless regulations that would slowly kill us.

Warren. Hillary was in it for control, but mostly to line her own pockets. Elizabeth Warren wants wholesale change to the Constitution - preferably its elimination in favor of a socialist dictatorship.

Not to nitpick (OK, nitpicking) but there is only one year and eight months' difference in their ages.

Granted, Hillary seems older, though. I just am not sure that one is irrelevant based on age, and the other isn't. (Wish they both were.)

Otherwise, I agree with your comment WRT deeper structural problem.

the way the employees who have been voted to "run" the us government for over 100 years are the culprits. it matters not what "party" is in power they are birds of a feather. i used to think that the demos would do it faster the the repubs but as we have seen it matters not. h and e have lots of helpers if they were ever the president.

....the destruction is already assured...it is a question of "when"...not "if"...the repubs and dems are unified in this...the decifit has grown under Trump...not decreased...