Part of an overhauled America, would likely entail a redoing of all kinds of things. Including a standardization of criminal codes - getting rid of legacy criminal qualifications in every state, and starting fresh from a clean sheet design. Over time I expect that sort of thing to eventually devolve with the introduction of new codes, but we can enshrine things.

For example, requiring attorneys to switch between defense and offensive roles, allowing both sides to pick their representatives, make it so that all legal representation is free, standardize records of lawyers for people to review, ensure juries are split in half, each receiving an explanation of the defense or offense at the same time, ect.

To sum up: make it harder to game the legal system, and give the prosecution and defense equal standing. Right now, prosecutors get too many advantages.

Probably a topic best for the Legal Eagle team to roundtable and do some game theory on.

Pardon powers have been in effect while this was unjustly applied.

I understand the impulse, but they frankly don't contribute meaningfully to the actual criminal justice system.

After Richard Nixons pardon, It should have been unequivocally. Fucking. Over.

Seems to me that this is a great argument for getting rid of the death penalty. It's a win-win. No more pardons for the guilty, no more executions for the innocent.

Secret ballot means no one, not even you, should have a record of who you voted for.

You can have a pardon committee which isn't uncommon then you only would expect a vote if the governor pardons someone outside that in violation of norms.

The discussion is about liquid democracy. It is only form of democracy that doesn't result in zionazi oligarchist corporatist supremacism, but generally, the privilege of voting on every pardon is not the main appeal.

My, bestest, form of liquid democracy is that you have the option to delegate your vote on any silo of topics/legislation to anyone who can delegate all the votes they "control" to anyone else too. So voter fatigue is not a real argument. You're not obligated to vote. If you had delegated your vote to someone who voted for pardon in OP, you might be pissed off at them, and "recall" your support immediately.

Digital ID is only reasonable under guarantee of a non evil state. Liquid democracy is both a great use of Digital ID, and only permitted imposition of it.

I wasn't missing it. I was just wondering what the other guy's solutions to all the other problems would've been before addressing the main blocker.

Assuming voters would go through 500+ pages of laws multiple times a week (because city voting, state voting, federal voting...) is just silly.

Buck and Darlene don’t have financial incentives to attack Iran

Financial? No. But they're using Facebook, and the military industrial complex has been bombarding their feed with rage-bait of how Iran is going to rape their children, so they decide that US has to bomb Iran first.

Our richest and ‘wise’ leaders who had the resources and time to better the world, failed to do so

Mate, that's not a problem with democracy. That's a problem with the fact that you currently have an organised crime ring that's taken over the country, and your entire rule of law got kicked in the balls.

With a (free) smartphone in hand, anyone can instantly check out a voting measure and cast their opinion on it.

Mate...

First of all: digital voting is famously difficult to pull off. Source: last two US elections, especially the 2024, where - somehow - the guy who’s friends with the guy whose company makes the majority of the voting machines, and who provides them all with Internet access, somehow knew the result 4 hours before the count ended.

Did you miss this part?

Secondly, I mentioned that there should be laminated receipts from the voting machines. Every voter may ask for it after casting their vote. Their cellphones can also have a QR code, so they they can go into the local print shop to immediately have their voting record printed out

You seem to be under the impression that "vote fraud" means Belarusian or russian levels of comedy, where the person committing fraud wins by taking 90%+ of all votes.

How it actually happened in your case was by flipping a couple thousand votes here and there.

Which means one of two scenarios:

1. Nobody gives a shit because the difference looks realistic enough to not suspect anything.

2. People get salty and call for re-counts for every single vote they lose.

Also: people get receipts? Great. How do you anonymise their votes?

Also-also: people can call for a re-count? How many people? One person can cause the re-count of all votes? Do you need a percentage? If so, how is it collected? Via an online service, such as change.org, famous for being botted non-stop? What happens if most people forgot to take their receipts? Or threw them out?

Plus, open-source voting. That means instead of Diebold making the software, the federal government does, which has to allow inspectors from any state to make unannounced audits of the software chain.

Open source doesn't protect you from exploits, mate.

Thirdly, I already mentioned who the voters are: the ones who cast an vote. Requiring absolutely 51% of EVERYONE is unrealistic. Instead, the voting pool should adjust according to how many people cast a vote. So if 5,000 people cast votes, 2,501 have to say ‘Nay’ to prevent a pardon

Right. So, knowing that the vast majority of people would lose interest after the second vote (it's already difficult to drag their arses into the booths once every four years), you'd end up with big businesses offering thousands of votes for whatever case in exchange for a payout.