I think the prophylactic benefit outweighs the inconvenience.
Due to the sheer extent to which this is currently open for abuse (e.g. see prior link), I entirely disagree.
This is a problem common to ERPOs and is part of why they're so strongly resisted - tranpling a person's rights requires extreme diligence and emphasis on restoration of those rights. Putting the burden on the individual whose rights have been wrongfully infringed upon to regain their rights through procedural bullshit is a complete inversion of burden of proof, is a vector for harassment and abuse itself, and approaches enabling bans by incremental erosion of rights.
If there was conclusive data to indicate such measures would impact domestic violence - not just that by firearm - you would at least be able to try and justify making such a change. As it stands, we have only myriad correlations with minimal control for other factors and even then, there's not much to be shown for domestic violence, categorical improvement - just a shift in implement.
With that justification in place, you're still obligated to cover the road to restoration of rights in order to ensure anyone wrongfully impacted is made whole with no burden on their part.
If you want to argue for some Trumpian "take the firearms first" nonsense, don't be surprised when such measures are so strongly criticized and pushed back upon.
Due process is there when the order is originally given and there is a method of redress.
Specially since they can petition a court to review their case
You do understand you're putting the burden on the person whose rights are being restricted without them having "had their day", right? That's... kind of the whole problem.
It would be more accurate to say the case in question is about whether or not due process matters for such a restriction; that civil findings are insufficient to restricting one's constitutional rights.
Leave it to John Hopkins to misrepresent a "firearms" issue entirely.
Regulatory capture seems about on par for Google these days. I suppose I'll be switching back to OnePlus for Android devices; that'll be about it for Google stuff in my home.
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Surprising no-one, they show a complete lack of interest in actually addressing term lengths and only put forth a measure addressing what they perceive to be a Republican advantage in the Supreme Court - a move as blatantly partisan as it is hypocritical.
But, this article goes on to admit as much -
“An organized scheme by right-wing special interests to capture and control the Supreme Court, aided by gobs of billionaire dark money flowing through the confirmation process and judicial lobbying, has resulted in an unaccountable Court out of step with the American people," Whitehouse said in a press release.
In a FPTP voting system, a vote for a third party will dilute the vote of the party closest-aligned to the preferences of the voter casting it- an effect that implicitly aids the party farthest-away from the voter’s preference. This means the winner doesn’t need a majority, they just need divided opponents.
In what way does addition to a third sum dilute the first two sums?
If Candidate A has one vote, Candidate B has one vote, and Candidate C has one vote, does adding one to Candidate C's sum somehow detract from Candidate A's sum?
Does it somehow give Candidate A an advantage over Candidate B, who still have equal and unchanged sums?
Of course not. That would violate basic math.
It's interesting, however, that you highlight a basic need for divided opponents as the con to a third party... yet it applies better to the current duopolistic nature where either party is increasingly dependent on nothing more than the polarized and divided voterbase. Look no further than continued blue no matter who etc. and ongoing painting of entire parties in a given light to the neglect of the actual candidates.
The existence of this spoiler effect in FPTP requires voters to vote based on how they bet other voters will vote, instead of signaling their actual preferences, in order to avoid dividing their support and throwing the election to the opposing side.
FPTP places no such requirement on voters - the only presence of such is your absurd insistence such a requirement exists.
Do you see this requirement in place in some form of legislation you must adhere to? No?
Ironically, if a voter signaled their actual preferences - to the disregard of blue no matter who and similar nonsense - it's likely third parties would be faring far better. Unfortunately, you and others here seem to be dead-set on vote shaming outside the duopoly.
This prevents the parties from knowing what voters really want
Oh? Canvassing has ceased to exist? The results of other elections - especially those in primaries where the primary differences are policy choices and messaging (to those policies) - can't serve as any form of indicator?
Interesting.
while giving donors and insiders massive leverage by way of giving them the ability to influence which candidates voters will bet ‘can win’
You once-more describe the current state of things while attempting to describe some other state of things.
It’s harmful to democracy, to the voters, and to the public interest, but it’s fantastic for party insiders and donors that want things the public doesn’t want.
The only harm here is your insistence a voter should vote how you believe they should vote to the neglect of their actual preferences - a thing that actually damages democracy.
Fun fact, under First Past the Post voting, supporting a third party is the absolute worst thing you can do.
Oh?
It’s called the spoiler effect, and it often results in the absolute worst candidate winning an election.
If you support a third party that is loosely aligned with one of the major parties, you can end up in a situation where candidate A gets 40%, and your third party candidate, whose platform is closest to A, gets an astounding 15%, and they both lose to Candidate B, the most hated of both A voters and Third Party voters because B got 45%.
I note you predicate this theory on the flawed assumption that a third party ... is loosely aligned with one of the major parties.
Which third parties in the United States would you say are loosely aligned with either the Democrats or the Republicans? Beyond the DSA, there's... nada, and even the DSA is a stretch.
The classic example is the 1992 presidential election, where Clinton won with 43% of the vote.
The 2000 election is another example where Bush won* with 307 votes, far less than the 97488 votes that Ralph Nader got,
Oh? So the fault of this is on the voter for choosing to support a candidate in alignment with their values - one who represents their interests - in an honest use of the vote, rather than the candidate failing to win over the voters?
Do you believe there's nothing a given candidate could do to, say, win over a given set of voters? No reflection and analysis to be done on why voters are voting a specific way - say, what policies are repelling them, what policies might attract them, etc? The voter is the only one able to act differently?
You seem to entirely invert responsibility.
The point being, you cannot have a third party until you change the voting system to actually support third parties. And that means a cardinal voting system, such as STAR (my current favorite)
This is an outright lie; a third party can be supported by simply attaining votes. There is no real mechanism or barrier beyond the lies and propaganda you're sharing here which discourages people from voting honestly.
Okay, you’re not understanding the simple fact that third parties are actually harmful under First Past the Post.
What utter nonsense.
I believe you aren't understanding that third parties are necessary to bring about significant change in a duopolistic system.
The concept talked about is Duverger’s Law
Ahhh... the "law" that theorizes not that "third parties are actually harmful", but rather that "plurality would act to delay the emergence of new political forces and would accelerate the elimination of weakening ones, whereas proportional representation would have the opposite effect".
Here’s a scholarly article about it.
An attempt to provide evidence for a "law" after-the-fact? Interesting order of operations, there.
Did you have any citation from that article, or was this just an attempt to drop a pay-walled article and move on?
Want to make a real difference? Advocate for voting reform.
No form of voting reform will be allowed by either establishment party; the only way this will come about is through introduction of a third party - any third party - which can be used to force the establishment parties away from simply maintaining power.
![Jeremy [Iowa]](https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/cf578083-5772-4b2f-a181-51285d32757b.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Due to the sheer extent to which this is currently open for abuse (e.g. see prior link), I entirely disagree.
This is a problem common to ERPOs and is part of why they're so strongly resisted - tranpling a person's rights requires extreme diligence and emphasis on restoration of those rights. Putting the burden on the individual whose rights have been wrongfully infringed upon to regain their rights through procedural bullshit is a complete inversion of burden of proof, is a vector for harassment and abuse itself, and approaches enabling bans by incremental erosion of rights.
If there was conclusive data to indicate such measures would impact domestic violence - not just that by firearm - you would at least be able to try and justify making such a change. As it stands, we have only myriad correlations with minimal control for other factors and even then, there's not much to be shown for domestic violence, categorical improvement - just a shift in implement.
With that justification in place, you're still obligated to cover the road to restoration of rights in order to ensure anyone wrongfully impacted is made whole with no burden on their part.
If you want to argue for some Trumpian "take the firearms first" nonsense, don't be surprised when such measures are so strongly criticized and pushed back upon.
Except it really isn't, hence the entire issue.