[Cboldt]

-- This fellow makes a pretty good historical case, but we have one condition today that is different and relevant. --

I was thinking that the primary difference, today, is that "the economy" is different for the takers, who vote for the government givers (the DEMs).

"The economy," for that voter, is not whether or not a job is coming, or a rising tide floats all boats. That voter is self centered, and is sensitive to promises form more handouts, better care, etc. As long as the DEMs can blame the GOP for failing to handout, the takers will rule.

This was predicted long ago, and is a historically repeating pattern. It is the reason democracies always always always fail.

[muawiyah]

The fellows making all those predictions didn't have much knowledge of democracies ~ at that time. They didn't know if they failed ~ in fact, in their consideration of democratic process they imagined a permanent majority would pop into existence and begin looting the republic.

Actually, the single member district and it's 50%+1 long term winning standard pretty much eliminates that problem. Alas for the Founders, they didn't have much knowledge of democracy so they blew it. In fact they thought men of property and education would always elect good men to office so they didn't really think that far ahead to the time when there'd be no slaves, and everybody could read and write.