Capital punishment law needs to be national

@ABooksNightmare

Nicely done.  I mostly agree.

But I would reiterate that just because someone owned land did not mean they were ‘wealthy’.

For example, a lot of the Founders were land ‘rich’ but cash poor.

Then after the War a Great Depression set in.  Then, those with land could not sell, or even, rent their land.

Plenty were not so wealthy.  Like Samuel Adams, or Hamilton.  

There were plenty of wealthy Plantation owners.  But, as I mentioned above, a lot of the smaller farmers were given the land as incentive.  They were barely eking out a living.  A lot of them lost the land in the Depression.  This was akin to the old yeomen-type of landowners from Europe.

Even Washington was dead-broke until he married the rich widow.

I would also say at that time, it was not strictly the case in England that you had to be a landowner to vote.  It was somewhat varied from landowner; whether you paid certain taxes; were a freeman in certain boroughs; then there were boroughs that had a ‘pot-walloper’ system (where you could vote if you simply could boil a pot on your own hearth).

Then you also had another system where you could vote if you simply leased a place.  It had some archaic term that slips me right at the moment.

In some of the American Colonies there were some exceptions made for merchants, ministers, teachers, lawyers and such.

But for sure, the overriding theme was that owning land gave a sense of a stake in the game, so to speak.

There was also the worry of ‘coercion’ in voting.  The open policy at the time made it a question of whether a man could impel his workers, or even his wife to vote as he demanded they vote.

@ABooksNightmare

On the two political parties, you are absolutely correct.  I have always said that there should be 3,4, or 5 strong parties.  

In fact, political parties were a complete afterthought.  

For example, originally folks did not campaign for president.  It was not really until the 1840 election where someone actually campaigned for President or Vice-President.  

Most people get confused and think the United States has a National election.  They do not.  They have a Federal election.  It is distinctly set up this way for a variety of reasons stemming from things that the FF wanted to avoid. 

So, it is not really one election; but 51 separate elections (including D.C.).

These same folks also do not realize that they do NOT vote for a Presidential candidate, but vote for a candidate’s electors.

Then those electors get together and decide the candidate to send their votes to the delegation for.

These electors are supposed to decide this in good faith.

They are not bound in the way people think.

If these electors got together and decided that Trump was too old and had issues that would not unite the country — they do not have to vote for him.  On the other hand, if they decide Harris is showing ineptitude to do the job and would not unite the country — they do not have to vote for her.

The only things they are held to are that they elect a person that has not served two terms already, is at least 35 years old, and is a natural-born citizen.

So, they could ‘in good faith’ decide to elect, say Newsom, Warren, Jeb Bush or Pence.  They would be well within their rights and this would not be a failure of the system — but exactly how it was intended to work.

@ABooksNightmare

The swing states are not a very viable argument.  This is a fluid and moving target.  

For example, New Jersey used to be a swing state but is safe now.  California was ‘safe’ Republican until 1988 and now is ‘safe’ Democrat.  

Some years ago, NYT did a good article on this with a diagram of how so many of the states have swayed back and forth.

This is also not as much of a political issue as some folks make it out to be.  Most folks remember how JFK defended it at the time.  There are many other Democrats that do as well.  There is even a Democrats for the Electoral College group — or something along that title.

The huge problem now with both of those issues (voter’s rights and Electoral College) is that the federal Government has grown so large and all-encompassing that the whole idea of Federalism is now at odds with the Democratic part of the way the entire system was set up.

As Freidman said about another topic that I think applies here:  “You have a case of A and B deciding what C shall do for D — except they take a little commission also.”

So, my contention is NOT that the ‘whole system needs to be revamped” as much as the whole system needs to get back in line with what was originally intended for this type of government to work.

@Raiders22

@Raiders22

If we can’t get anything done for the majority of people with 2 parties, How would adding 2,3,or more like say The UK make it better…? It will still be log jam as usual….We need positive change!
I’d like to see changes like  financial and time limits and truth-in-advertising laws enacted equally on everybody don’t violate protections of free political speech; that corporations are not people and do not have the rights of citizens; Take the NRA out of legislation so that requirements for safe handling of weapons are legitimate and that specific locations can ban specific weapons if they can show good reason;I’m sure I can think of some more but I’ll hang out this laundry list

1. Direct popular vote election to the presidency.
2. Supreme Court justices can be removed from office by a 3/4 vote of the Senate
3. Much stricter control on the media and journalists, to prevent muckraking or possibly something like a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine but updated (how?) for the modern media situation?
4. House and Senate both elected to 4-year terms, with a 16-year max limit on time in Congress
5. Supreme Court decisions can be overturned, but only by a 3/4 majority of both houses of Congress. The exception to this would be laws pertaining to Congress itself, such as Congress salaries.
6. Constitutional amendment needs only 3/4 majority by referendum or 3/4 of states
<

@joe pockets

 The 'theory' is that it would give the folks more 'varied' choices.

People now are forced into one or two parties -- no matter what.  

Basically, everyone really is stuck with ONE party -- that they mainly align with.

For example, you and I mostly disagree and will -- by default -- always oppose each other.

Let us say that there were more options that addressed issues that YOU and I both were more concerned with this year.

Then we might very well find ourselves on the SAME party for that particular election.

By 'time limits' -- I assume you mean 'term limits'?

If so, I agree.

BUT WE HAVE those NOW.  People need to vote them out.  But people refuse to do it.  They just are too uninformed to -- or lack the fortitude to do it.  The politicians will NEVER vote themselves term limits.  Maybe it could be an initiative on the ballots.

People like to say that they do not like the choices, so they opt NOT to vote.  That is an awful choice to me.

You are about to have basically the Super Bowl of elections and you are going to 'sit out'?  That makes absolutely no sense.  They say then they cannot be blamed if whoever they vote for messes up.  Why not?  You can still blame your guy/gal if they mess up.  It is not your fault just because you voted for them.

An example I like to use is that a few years ago a guy was running that was going to win easily.  But in his past term he had not really done what his supporters wanted him to do, etc.

So, a 3rd party guy was running -- Libertarian.  So, there was a big groundswell for the 3rd party guy.  

There was no way for the 3rd party guy to win -- or the opposing party to win.

BUT IF the 3rd party guy could get enough votes he would force the top 2 candidates into a runoff.  That is exactly what did happen.

The guy then had to spend more money and time and resources campaigning all over again.  Because he knew that his supporters were disenchanted with him -- there was now serious concern that the 3rd party voters would switch over to his opponent, or sit out the runoff.

He did go on to win.

BUT THEN during the next term he was far more understanding of his supporter's issues.

So, there are various other ways to handle it.  But the folks have to understand the issues, the process AND want to make a change.

@joe pockets

1. Direct popular vote election to the presidency

No sir.  This one I can never get on board with.  For many reasons, some of which I have explained above and other places.  Even some of the FF wanted the Parliamentary-type situation at first.  There were huge disputes about this.  Then the EC was basically a compromise with the individual states to form a union of the states, etc.

Think, again, on how misinformed the average 'voter' is -- or how easily 'misled' or 'influenced' they may be.  

Way more to this issue.

1. Supreme Court justices can be removed from office by a 3/4 vote of the Senate

A lot of folks push for this sort of thing.  But you have to ask why they do.  It is rarely because they think a SCJ is not interpreting the Constitution.  It is because they are not doing what they want them to do.

The way to get what you want is to elect the folks you want elected that will pass the laws that will do what you want.  Then, very rarely, the SC will not be forced to make this determination. Etc., etc.

1. Much stricter control on the media and journalists, to prevent muckraking or possibly something like a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine but updated (how?) for the modern media situation?

I am far less concerned about this than most people.  The problem will generally get back to people being lazy, and misinformed and not doing their own research.  You have to remember that a lot of folks nowadays lack critical-thinking skills.  

So, if you want to 'restrict' the media it begins to look like you want to control the narrative.  The question will always have to be asked -- who gets to control it.

1. House and Senate both elected to 4-year terms, with a 16-year max limit on time in Congress

No. For the same reasons as I mentioned above.

Also, consider that the Senate elections have already been changed to satisfy the 'democratic sensibilities'.  I can argue that was a HUGE mistake.

Remember that the FF only set up one office that was a complete popularly elected position.  They did this for very good reasons.

1. Supreme Court decisions can be overturned, but only by a 3/4 majority of both houses of Congress. The exception to this would be laws pertaining to Congress itself, such as Congress salaries.

Again, no.  Why are the law-makers NOW the final arbiters on the Constitutionality of the laws that they pass.  They already have serious personal interest in a lot of them.  Whether you agree with their ability to be 'inseider-traders' or not -- think of the issues this could raise.  Along with many other issues the would stem from this.

1. Constitutional amendment needs only 3/4 majority by referendum or 3/4 of states

I am not sure what you are proposing here.

@joe pockets

 If we can’t get anything done for the majority of people...

I think this is where a lot of people go astray.  I get what they intend when they say this, but I think it is a bad presupposition to start with.