mail in voting

[hollodero]

(06-11-2020, 08:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It also should be noted, though, that the 2A was written at a time when there were no police forces and we weren't planning on having a full-time standing land force. Our constitution provides for a permanent navy, but not army. The army has to be reauthorized every two years because the FFs didn't like the idea of a permanent army. So law enforcement and defense were left up to the citizenry at the time, but it is no longer the case. This context is often neglected when discussing the 2A.

I learn a lot here.
So it's even more outdated then.

(06-11-2020, 08:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The EC isn't responsible for the two-party system.

Fair point. I do think, however, that it is indirectly responsible. A state-by-state majority voting system would be quite unfathomable without a quantifying entity like electors, and said system imho is the major culprit when it comes to the two-party system.

(06-11-2020, 08:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Even if we went to the popular vote we would remain a two-party country. There are a number of reasons for it which includes the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system as well as our ridiculously under representative legislature (the number of Representatives has stayed the same sine 1911 or so, while our population is 361% of what it was at the time). For instance, were we to have a lower chamber that was as proportional as the Austrian National Council, we would have a House of 6858 people.

Interesting number. However, I guess you made that pont once a few years back and I remember me responding that I can hardly think of anyone who looks at congress and thinks, oh golly I wished there were 10 times more of those people.
In the end, I guess it makes some sense to cap the number of representatives at a certain point, or else it just turns inert and chaotic. You don't really want a debate of 5.000 house members.