mail in voting

[Belsnickel]

(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.

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.

(06-11-2020, 08:17 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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 EC isn't responsible for the two-party system. 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.