Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I just wonder why the US president can't be elected by direct vote rather than indirect vote (or rather, "why it was written as such in the Constitution"). That sounds like a silly and overcomplicated choice to me.
I know, we have this two-turns weirdness here; to me it's a "next best thing" (for lack of a better word) to preferential voting: It allows vote transfer and thus reduces the spoiler effect (though 2002 demonstrated that it doesn't reduce it enough, which tainted subsequent French presidential elections with the "fear of a new 2002").
edited 30th Dec '12 5:28:04 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."I wouldn't mind if we went to proportional representation for each state and just ignore districts altogether. It would probably cause its own set of problems but at least we wouldn't have bullshit like the Democrats winning the majority of the votes in the state but only getting a third of the seats. The representatives for the state should reflect the values of the state and so far districting seems to be failing at this.
I'm not sure complete write-in voting would work well, for a number of the previously mentioned reasons, and perhaps parties can't be abolished altogether. But they might not need to be - there's nothing that says the party needs to be named on the ballot, and not naming parties of the candidates (only names) should cut down on folks blindly voting straight party ticket without reading anything at all about the candidates themselves. Of course, that would have to be implemented by partisan officials, good luck convincing them of that, and parties or campaigns can always send out flyers or put out ads saying who's in which party without giving out much other info.
She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating LiveblogIf you remove party names form the ballot then you will see lots of elections being won by the person whose name comes first. People already get extra votes if they are the first (or last) name on the ballot. That will increase massively if you remove part affiliation from the ballot. Plus less people will vote.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranDidn't think about that, interesting. Not sure if the point overturns what I see as the benefits, though - a name coming first on the ballot would presumably affect all ideologies equally, unless one party started legally changing all their names to things like "Aaron Aaronson". Still would be a hard sell, though, of course, as the current system benefits those who would have to change it.
She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog
The issue isn't just getting them passed, it's implementing them in practice. For example, someone would have to determine what does and doesn't constitute a rider, and that can be a very subjective thing. Depending on how strict the enforcement was, either riders would still get through thanks to some tenuous connection, or politicians would be able to get bills they oppose struck down on the pretense that some section isn't directly related to the main purpose.
I think the solution is a stricter set of laws limiting what Congress can do, not how they can do it.
There's no way to not make it vague. "Related" is an inherently subjective measure. There's often no clear line between something that's related and something that's not.
For example, if you want to attach an oil subsidy to an education bill you might argue "This will help ensure that there are good engineering jobs available for the next generation of students."
On the other hand, if you wanted to pass an anti-discrimination bill, someone might argue "Race, gender, and sexuality are separate issues. They are riding on each other. This bill should be struck down so they can all be debated individually."
I am... kinda sick to my stomach.
2011, the Indiana supreme court upheld a class-A misdemeanor charge against a man who attacked a police officer when that officer was responding to a claim of domestic violence by the man's wife. He had started throwing things when she tried to move out.
The NRA got so pissed off with this that they successfully lobbied for an amendment to the state's Castle Doctrine law which would allow citizens to attack and indeed kill "Public servants" if the citizen feels in danger or feels that the entry is unlawful.
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.\\
![]()
So you suggest we just do nothing?
So does this mean drug dealers can legally shoot police officers? They'd still get charged with drug dealing but it sounds like they wouldn't get held accountable for that. Either way this is a stupid idea for many reasons.
edit: I get that the police can be corrupt and shit but once citizens don't get in trouble for disobeying them then there's no point to having a police force.
edit 2: Wait it wasn't unlawful for them to enter. The wife said they could come in and even if she didn't I'm pretty sure they're allowed to enter if they're attempting to stop a crime. Cops can go into places if they absolutely have to without being allowed in.
edited 30th Dec '12 11:39:09 AM by Kostya
Ok, thats bullshit NRA. Them "acting illegally" isn't reason enough to shoot them in the face, and this police officer wasnt even doing anything illegal! If a cop came in and started shooting you, of course you can fight back. But if they come in when your attacking your wife, come on, you really think your in the right at ALL?
edited 30th Dec '12 11:48:46 AM by Joesolo
I'm baaaaaaackObama praises Hagel as a ‘patriot’
Boehner: Obama should ‘lead, not cast blame’ in fiscal talks
Senator Barrasso: Obama has 'addiction' to spending
Senator Graham vows to oppose new federal assault weapons ban

The Constitution isn't made for the 21st Century
And you can't rearrange the States willy-nilly either.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman