I don’t necessarily think that the best system is the one that favours minor (or major) parties. The reason for the success, or otherwise, of minor parties involved a hundred variables.
The best electoral system makes the best value of a person’s personal vote. That might be minor or major party candidate or even an independent.
Don’t know those systems so you could be right?
Chill, mate. Go for a walk…
I disagree. I too have been involved in elections in my country (Australia) and preferential voting system is pretty popular. As candidates get eliminated your vote keeps moving to your next choice. What could possibly be fairer?
If only that was an accurate summary of the flaming autopsy of a show.
I agree, better him than Trump, but let’s not minimise Biden’s interpretation of Monty Burns.
I agree with everything but the comment on the moderators. It’s not their job to hold the candidates to account, that’s the job of the dude standing right next to the speaker. If a presidential candidate needs to rely upon a journalist to correct disinformation in a debate that he himself is participating in, they shouldn’t be the candidate.
I’m a smooth-brained imbecile, but everytime that Trump opened his mouth I had 14 better responses than Biden had. He permitted the most outlandish untruths to go on the record unchecked. Biden would have done a better job by just replying “bulls*hit” in answer to Trump’s ramblings. The moderators just ask questions. They are not supposed to prop either side up.
The constitution is decided by the Supreme Court in the end. The American system of government makes the selection of justices political appointees for life. That is why you have Republican and Democrat justices. Political. So the constitution gets bent into any political shape according to power possession.
Don’t for a second believe that the United States can’t sleepwalk into a dictatorship. People are already describing Jan 6 as an ordinary tourist visit. What will it take for the public to see the danger with their own eyes.
You went into a ton of detail, thank you. But it is meaningless under the original definition of the act.
“The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”
A bump stock modifies the frame of the gun which converts it into a fully automatic weapon. Don’t just get stuck on the trigger part of the action. The act covers everything, you just can’t cherry pick a single clause and ignore everything else. Otherwise they just might make you into one of Trump’s Supreme Court justices.
So much twaddle and dancing around definitions. You could definitely qualify for a spot on Trump’s Supreme Court.
All they are a modification to turn a semiautomatic gun into a full automatic weapon. That’s it. All the intricate dribble into the contrary doesn’t change that. Water is wet, sky blue, and modifications allowing automatic fire are machine guns.
What I find fascinating is the total number of numbskulls and cartoon villains, all collected under the Trump banner, and that lunatic mob may very well take government.
What’s the hell wrong with American voters?
That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited. A court that is very big on textual meaning, as it purports to be, would readily agree, unless bias is in the driver’s seat.
This conservative supreme court despised regulatory agencies . For decades the US government has relied upon such agencies as subject experts and has allowed them to regulate their areas. This court just wants to reverse this common sense and established way of doing things. I might remind you that the bump stock thing wasn’t a democrat initiative, but a bipartisan Trump one.
I disagree with the accuracy of what you just said, but 100% agree with your sentiments.
I actually looked up the legalisation one time. Congress described a machine gun and gave all the definitions that were forbidden to alter it to make it automatic fire. It was pretty comprehensive, particularly given that it was written in the 80s. However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.
And I don’t believe that you are a gun nut at all. You seem perfectly reasonable and make a good point.
I’m not calling the insurrectionists good people, I’m calling the defenders of the constitution who might catch an AR 15 round good people.
I guess my point is not that they’ll necessarily be successful, it’s more that a great many good people won’t go home to their families that night.
They weren’t successful last time and the Republican Congress welcomed the traitor-in-chief back to DC last week as a hero.
The Republicans get away with so much despicable action and each time the Dems get pants by the audacity of the attempt. That’s how we are here now.
The conservatives will try absolutely anything, up to and including armed insurrection. Now with AR15s, and probably with bumpstocks fitted.
Don’t think that it could never happen. The MAGA element love being underestimated.
I have to inform you that that US has some of the best spy satellite networks on the planet.
People shocked that other countries play the spook game too is amazing.
The country that makes ALL your shit has nothing to fear in a trade war. Unless you want to forgo ALL your shit?
Who would have thought that sending all those jobs overseas to increase company profits and depress wages would have a downside?
Welcome to Marx 101.
“Property is theft”
I hear what you are saying, and I agree with some of it, but not several key points. I have supported a couple of different parties and regularly hand out how to vote cards at different elections and have done so for decades. The idea that voters slavishly follow party advice couldn’t be more wrong. One in two voters snub the cards outright, many rudely so. Contrary to popular opinion, on the day, the vast majority of voters know which box they are going to pick.
Secondly, your point about minor parties struggling in Australian elections. Well, so what? There is no constitutional imperative to either favour or disfavour small parties. Or large ones, for that matter. That you think that this is important is neither here nor there constitutionally. Myself, I think that it would be better if it were so, but no system should put its weight behind it. When the constitution was put into force in 1901, parties were not enshrined, candidates were.