mail in voting

[BmorePat87]

(06-11-2020, 08:17 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, or how it allowes every dimwit to go out hung with weapons like a Chechen army... but I digress. I get this made sense when outlaws, hostile native tribes or english armies or whatever, or buffalos and grizzlies, were a clear and present danger. Or to form a militia against tyrants, which imho shows how little trust there was in the system to prohibit just that from the start.

Depends on who you ask. The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment being a protection of the right of the individual to own a firearm is a recent invention (Heller 2008 and McDonald 2010). For the longest time it was interpreted as protecting the states from the federal government in being able to regulate an armed citizenry. 

Of course, the fact that our constitution is so open to interpretation causes some issues.

Quote:Well, that works out just splendidly right now, doesn't it. Which is the obvious risk here, that by separating the powers domination of one branch over the other (like flat out taking checks away from Congress) is actually easier as if they were more intertwined. Imho.

Also, if that thought were to be at least consistent, supreme court judges would have to be elected by the people (or whatever the EC is) as well.

- Another downside are permanent lame ducks, a concept so divisive and potentially blocking it does not seem quite reasonable. Which imho came painfully true when McConnell directly told Obama that the senate will oppose him on every turn no matter what. Which, of course, invites ruling by 'executive order' (another quite strange concept) and enhancing said danger of tyranny further.

There's certainly plenty of examples of it failing in the last 4 years. This is of course a direct consequence of politicians not valuing these constitutional principles and having a POTUS with a disdain for democracy. There arguably could be far worse examples of this had we always had an executive selected by the Legislative, but the solution is still abolishing the EC so that fringe candidates cannot win after getting 3m less votes.

There's a lot of good suggestions for reform for SCOTUS. I don't agree with elections, but Buttigieg suggested expanding the bench to include a rotating group of justices with the new justices being selected unanimously by the existing justices.   

Quote:I did not know that. Interesting.
Sure the problem is that the current EC also establishes a two party system where this can not possibly happen. I take it it wasn't always like that, but it is like that as of now, and it's no wonder that a winner takes all system was established by the two most powerful parties, so every other party is doomed to fail from the start.

The 2 party system has roots in the formation of the Constitution, but the EC as written doesn't really do this. It's, as you pointed to, the new changes (winner take all) instituted by these parties that allows them to maintain that hold. 

Quote:Not to mention 4 million unblemished US citizens are not allowed to vote for president at all.

There's still significant disenfranchisement, even with people who are "allowed" to vote. Keeping minorities off voter rolls, delaying registration, closing voting stations to ensure long lines, discouraging voting, not closing business for voting days to hurt lower income voters, etc.