Yeah, that's the sort of thing they're thinking of doing. Exercise routines. I imagine that the whole thing would look rather horrific, we'll probably replace the whole "watching sausage get made" metaphor with something more general.
No need to replace it at all. We'll keep it, but we'll just be referring to an earlier step in the process!
Why should the public pay for party primaries? If the parties don't want 5 (or 10...) people running, they should control and pay for their own internal selection process. There's no good reason to ask the public to pay for their internal politics. That would also eliminate the issue brought up here, which can work both ways.
That's a great point. I believe parties are a huge disruption of the democratic process. I don't believe that parties should be illegal, as that would be a clear violation of freedom of speech and freedom of association. But I do believe that the parties should have zero recognition within the government. There should be no positions of Majority Leader, Minority Leader, etc. Do what you want outside the halls of congress, but inside you should be just another 'aye' or 'nay.' And similarly here. There should be no notification of political party on ballots (If you're going to include their party, why shouldn't you include their stump speech, too? How about their employer? College?), nor should the public be paying for party primaries. Of course, this will make it harder for the uninformed to vote, but that's kind of the point.
That was not always true, however, according to this history of policing in America (from the section PRIVATE PROSECUTORS).
Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions — the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim.16 Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state — but for their own vindication.17 The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person.18 A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding.19 When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name — even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.20
Yes, because nobody takes the train, takes the bus, rides a bike, goes sailing, or any one of a thousand other things that can produce those speeds.
Riding the train or the bus, sure fine. But talking on the cell while riding your bike?! That's got to be at least as likely to cause an accident as talking while driving! Maybe you have a tandem bicycle?
In an important breakthrough, scientists at McMaster University have discovered how to make human blood from adult human skin.
So not only will it clot, it can tan?
And blend!
proportional representation
The U.S. doesn't have a "two-party" system for any reason other than two parties have a lot more political skill than any third party does.
Well, that and first past the post voting...
According to one commentator, Congress had two principal concerns about sound recordings, leading it to decline to protect them. First, Congress wondered about the constitutional validity of such protection. The Constitution allows Congress to protect "writings," and Congress was uncertain as to whether a sound recording could constitute a writing. Second, Congress worried that allowing producers to exclusively control both the musical notation and the sound recording could lead to the creation of a music monopoly.
I found this to be the more interesting and exciting part of that quote:
Congress wondered about the constitutional validity of such protection.
That was probably the last time the constitutionality of a law actually came up in Congress...
Personally, I think it should be coproclepticratic... Government via the uncontrolled theft of people's shit.
We already have that.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
