How do you identify politically?

[Grinkle]

which has been a concession by Lincoln made to the South

I'm not sure about this. An American friend of mine also said this, and I showed him what I will paste below, and he seemed surprised, like something he had long held true was maybe not true. Where did you hear that? Was it that Lincoln had a chance to get rid of the EC along with other amendments he was working, and he chose not to?

Electoral College History

How did we get the Electoral College? The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term...

www.archives.gov

 

[fresh_42]

Where did you hear that?

I've forgotten where I read this. I was surprised, which is why I remember it. Until then, I thought the electoral college was a remnant of the "Pony Express", i.e., a consequence of the difficulty to gather the votes in a single place without the possibility of being corrupted. I always saw the electors riding through the prairie before my inner eye.
It seems that my statement was a mistake. I wish I could remember who told me that or where I found it. At least, it seems that the Electoral College worked in favor of Lincoln:

Abraham Lincoln and the Electoral College

Quickly and easily contact your state legislators with our easy-to-use system. Your state legislators are hearing from National Popular Vote lobbyists.…

saveourstates.com

Edit: I struck out the false statement.

 

[Patxitxi]

The defense of liberal (small L) democracy is not tied to any party. Authoritarian threats exist on both ends. With that said, how do you identify?

I refuse to get myself under a banner or a label. Any label. Is there a "not aligned" label for common-sensers?

 

[Grinkle]

Any label. Is there a "not aligned" label for common-sensers?

Do you see the irony here?

Irony aside, in the US folks will identify as "independent" to signal a lack of allegiance to one or the other of the two main political parties. Probably US folks feeling strongly that they are not in agreement with either R or D policies would pick "moderate" or "Other" from this particular poll list.

Edit: I just read in your other post that you used to live in the US, so you probably know everything I wrote above - I wasn't trying to be patronizing - hope it didn't read that way.

Would you be willing to pick a couple issues that are important to you and describe what you see as the common sense approach to them? That would be more illustrative than picking a poll answer, especially if you are not comfortable with any of the available labels.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I refuse to get myself under a banner or a label. Any label. Is there a "not aligned" label for common-sensers?

I respect this as conceptually a fine stance; however, when one side is destroying liberal democracy, by default, you should align with the other option.

 

[jack action]

I consider myself an amoralist.

A small group of people takes control of the government and uses it to make laws to define the morality of the country, one that serves them. Then another small group of people, not happy with this way of life, tries to take control to redefine the laws for their vision of morality, which just happens to serve them. In the end, there is not really a right or wrong way to live our lives.

Governments shouldn't take a position on what's right or wrong. Criminal laws shouldn't exist, and every conflict should be resolved in civil court on a case-by-case basis.

This is why I cannot pick a side anymore. I find it is more of the same either way.

 

[gleem]

Governments shouldn't take a position on what's right or wrong. Criminal laws shouldn't exist, and every conflict should be resolved in civil court on a case-by-case basis.

The result would be chaos. What standards or whose standards would be used in these courts?

 

[Grinkle]

I consider myself an amoralist.

Run for POTUS. ;-)

 

[jack action]

The result would be chaos. What standards or whose standards would be used in these courts?

What's wrong with the ones we have right now? And don't forget about case law, which gives anyone intending to go to court an idea of how a judgment may go. Case law adapts much more easily, yet not too fast, to the current moral climate in the jurisdiction.

It is easy to say that you fear your neighbor who, say, is homosexual or is black or just had an abortion, but it is another thing to demonstrate how this harms you. You know, just like today, we can go to court because we don't like our neighbor's pool, their trees, or their dog yapping all day: how does this harm you, and what would a reasonable person do in such a case?

For example, some sort of moral code that evolved since I was younger through the Civil court: it used to be expected that if you moved next to a noisy shop, you couldn't complain. But today, it doesn't matter, everyone has a right to their peace of mind. That was pretty much decided with case law over time.