On 11/8/19 7:44 AM, Prof David West wrote: > This would be fine, except for the fact, that by doing so, they are almost > guaranteeing a political outcome that is antithetical to their expressed > intent.
Well, my political intent is to actualize the checks and balances on which the system was predicated. It's the duty, the job, of the House to execute the inquiry. So, it's not clear *who* you're talking about when you say "they". You're not talking about this impeachment supporter, that's for sure. If, after the inquiry, the Senate "acquits" and the electoral college re-elects Trump, so be it. We did the right thing. But this does wrap back around into conflicting -isms. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the electoral college is obsolete. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that mob-rule is dangerous. If our system (whether a good representation of what the Founders wanted or not) doesn't integrate democracy with republic well enough, then a) do we tweak it, e.g. with rank choice voting, or b) scrap it for a new one? As much as I'd love to see a constitutional convention, my guess is too few people care enough about others (other countries, the earth, other life forms) to work authentically toward a solution. Every player would be trying to game the system for themselves (or their "tribe", whatever they think that is). So, scrapping it seems too risky. And we're left with the technical debt and the rule-rot we have. Our Constitution and other supporting frameworks like common law are a great example of a prematurely modeled integration that we're now stuck with. Maybe there's no way out of this local optimum to a more global optimum unless we scrap it. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
