“ I’m not in any way suggesting a full return to what the Founders intended.
Jaycephus
1

Well, let’s look at what you were advocating here:

removal of direct election of Senators
raising the voting age back to pre-Vietnam standards
allowing only those with “property” (by which I suppose you mean “real estate”) to vote
curtailing Federal control of the States via the Interstate Commerce clause

added to which you deigned to be mighty white and allow Blacks to retain full personhood and not be slaves.

When I say

“I’m not in any way suggesting a full return to what the Founders intended. That would be reactionary to the point of ludicrous. However, the Electoral College in its present state is of questionable value.”

you then declare that I have “lost all credibility” and that this is “not a serious discussion of merit.” I find that ironic, as I could certainly say that of the things you advocated. Your suggestion IS reactionary to the point of ludicrous, and therefore not serious or meritorious. I mean, I certainly hope you were being facetious. The people are not giving up progress to revert back to the status quo of 1789; that’s just the reality of the situation, and any serious belief in the possibility of getting that sort of polity would have to involve a time machine (and/or relocation to some backwards LDC), because it’s not happening in present-day America.

Direct election of Senators is progress, advancement (they are ultimately accountable to the people, or are supposed to be), likewise the lowered voting age (and for precisely the reason stated: if you’re old enough to kill and die for your country, then you’re old enough to have a say in its government which can send you to kill and die). As a person of Generation X, I’d still be “allowed” to vote (assuming of course that your reactionary policies did not divest women of suffrage, and you didn’t state one way or the other …), but this isn’t about me; it’s about what’s best for the people, and the republic.

Fewer people today have real estate than in 1790. I do, so I’d still be “allowed” to vote (assuming your reactionary policies did not divest women of suffrage, &c.), but again, this isn’t about me; it’s about what’s best for the people, and the republic. The majority of citizens in 2017 do not live in rural areas (I do, for the moment), but in urban or suburban environments, and most do not own their homes (I do), but rent or live in a home with a mortgage being paid off (which of course means that the bank could take it at any time if they miss a payment).

There’s no doubt that the Interstate Commerce clause has been abused and twisted to suit biases and vested interests, but I’m curious what “control” it is to which you refer exactly. Clarence Thomas’ flimsy reliance on that clause to perpetuate the persecution of those who have found solace and relief of physical maladies by means of an herb? Or something else?

And oh my goodness, how “progressive” of you to extend such largesse as to “go so far” as to “allow” Blacks to retain full personhood. How utterly and deliciously scandalous!

Credibility? Who makes suggestions like these seriously?

I must conclude that your first reply, then, was some sort of attempt at mockery by means of Straw Manning my position into some sort of “All-or-Nothing” fallacy. The fact that I see merit in some of what the Founders established via the Constitution does not, at all, mean that I agree with everything that they did, nor does it, at all, mean that I am required to do so.