"Seems like you don't understand how the laws work here. The states already have all the power. It's why we're called the United States. There really aren't that many federal laws, and the states can either blatantly ignore(immigration laws) or find ways around(drug and gun laws) the ones there are.
The whole point in having individual states instead of one large country is to limit the power of any one individual and recognize that citizens in different areas of the country have different needs and wants."
"Again, this is already how the country is run. The Constitution was written by and for the citizens of the United States. Every government at the local, state, or federal level MUST follow the Constitution. It is also already interpreted differently by each state, gun laws are a prime example. If someone doesn't like the laws of one state, they are free to move to a state with laws more in line with their beliefs...it's one of the reasons I moved from Virginia to Indiana."
Admittedly, I do not know how the laws work there (very well anyways). But I do understand how State representation works to some small degree. I do understand the governor and congress people in each state are elected to represent the individuals of the state. So what limit does a state have then, if the constitution is open for interpretation by each state? Example: Richard Spencer wins governer of Mississippi and begins to enact laws that make it easy for rich white people to live there, but difficult for low income people of color to live there. Now, the people voted him in... I'm sure there are people in Mississipi that have grown up there and had generations of family tending to land there, are you saying that these people should have to move if they don't like the policy in that state? Do individuals of a state have any recourse if they don't like what their governer is doing other than moving to another state? Don't get me wrong here, I'm not using the Richard Spencer example as some kind of glaring loophole that exists already, as it may not be possible... it's just an example of something that could happen that could affect a large population of a state, but not enough to make a majority when voting.
I guess I don't see the value in having state policy of "if you don't like it, there are 49 other states you can move to". Although I see the appeal, I also understand that is not exactly feasible for MOST Americans.
"People interpret things however they want. If the 2nd amendment specifically said "The people's right to own a gun shall never be infringed" it would still get interpreted differently. There would still be the arguments of it being written during a time of black powder rifles.
Honestly, I think the more laws and rules enacted under the guise of protecting freedom and liberty end up moving society further from that goal."
But then if you take those laws and rules away, what is the point of having that constitution at all? Shouldn't you have laws and rules that enforce the core values of that constitution, to preserve what the country was founded on? Leaving it up to each individual is going to result in the constitution meaning nothing and making no difference, because nobody would be held accountable for moving against the constitution. If these articles are so important for your country and are the founding principals of the country, I would think the citizens of that country would want those constitutions protected to the best of their ability. I mean, wars are fought over this kind of shit, so to say that rules and laws aren't effective is kind of like saying you might as well resort to anarchism because each individual right is more important than the values of the country those individuals live in. Maybe I misunderstood what you said there, so correct me if I'm off.
"You should know there is nothing 100% secured in technology. If I told you there was a .001% chance of hackers gaining access to our ballot system would you feel comfortable going to 100% online voting?"
I do know that nothing is 100% secure... but I do my banking online, I pay my bills online, I check my medical records and prescriptions online. I trust a lot of my personal information and security to certain online companies that I believe have good enough encryption that my data is relatively safe. I'm not naïve enough to believe that nobody could get this info if they really tried, but I also know that if we put a good team of honest trustworthy people together, they could come up with a system that would be even more secure than online banking and all that. Hell, you could make a system that gives hackers a 0.0000001% chance of accessing it if you did it right and isolated the system well enough. I'm not aiming for perfect, I'm just aiming for BETTER. And certainly a new voting system that uses top of the line encryption and multi-level verification would be WAY more secure than tossing ballots in the mail or in a drop box. You're still counting on several other people that are sorting and scanning your vote to get it right and only increasing the chance of human error. If I'm looking for the least amount of mistakes being made, would I pick AI or a human? When it's a binary issue like voting, the AI wins every time.
"If Hollywood has taught the world anything, it's not to rely on AI or technology too much. :)"
Too fucking late brother! We've already placed our eggs in the AI basket and there's no going back now. We certainly WILL see automated cars and commercial trucks on the road in the next decade. We're already seeing AI take hundreds of thousands of retail jobs... I mean, we already rely heavily on AI, so why not at least utilize the best parts of AI for a system that determines who will be leading the country for the next 4-8 years?