You can disconnect it because one has nothing to do with the other. There is the potential for what the people believed at the time and then what the leaders of the republic decided at the time and why they decided it.
You can find explanations following most important court cases throughout our written history. Things like that cannot be gamed by a political activist posing as a historian.
We didn't have a republic at the time of the revolutionary war... that was kind of the point. The "leaders"
were "the people". But, you seem to have shifted those goal posts again, seemingly changing your "idea" to a legal test of sorts.
Even just going by court cases you will see them interpreted differently. Fuck, even the supreme court justices often don't interpret laws/court rulings in the same way. These interpretations
absolutely can be, and usually are, politically skewed.
Are you proposing we create a new supreme ministry of legal history or something? Does the majority rule in this ministry? Who decides who's in the ministry? Does the supreme court have to defer to their interpretations of history? Are their rulings immutable?
You keep coming back to this idea that everyone will just agree and it will be fine. History has shown us that this is essentially never the case. Even "experts" have historically always disagreed. The problem isn't with political activists "posing" as historians, it's that humans are biased creatures. Historians don't have a perfect untainted view of history and never will.
What the hell is the point in saying it obfuscates the vote and then saying it is irrelevant in this context?
The net result still comes back to voting being pointless.
You're conflating the will of the people with voting. They are not one in the same. That's the point. If the vote is to have symbolic value of the will of the people, then there cannot be tactical voting. If the vote is to have political value in that it actually counts, then our electoral college system needs to go (among other things), which is not and has not been what I'm talking about in this fucking reply chain.
Except we don't run four candidates in the general election that way.
We whittle them down to two with the occasional jackass(es) coming in as the third wheel.
In each poll / election the people get to choose of the available candidates who their lesser evil is. If that isn't a symbolic choice I don't know what is.
Nothing here is obfuscated. The people voted. The people got what they wanted ( or didn't want ). Voting because you don't want something is the same as voting because you want something. Don't you get that?
Okay, I'll just add FPTP to the list of the great many things you don't seem to understand the consequences of. Honestly, there's no sense in trying to explain it to you any more. You're clearly as dense as a gravitational singularity.
So it is beyond us as a people to make a historically accurate test on the republic. Got it.
If only this weren't sarcasm. It is beyond us because "historically accurate" is a relative term. It varies. You will never have perfect consensus of the "important" events (or even consensus of what
is an "important" event), even among experts.
