Yes TG right on; anyway all of this shows that the "system" here isway to complicated and gets more complicated by the day.
All of this makes this country ungovernable, especially if the "one" party is "corrupting the whole "outdated" system.
Biden is doing his best to improve things, but the opposition tries with every means to undercut him, so the "chaos" will remain for a while. It seems that the "game" of winning "seats" is the only goal by the GOP, not the mental "health" and "normal health" of this country . Only "winning" counts, in order to fill their pockets and "ego's"
Well, it is not completely ungovernable, but it is pretty close to impossible to get major things done. For example, 80 percent of Americans want better gun control laws...but we cannot get there.
There are those who call for a new Constitutional Convention (Article 5) - but this is very dangerous, because many would seek to use this to strip away the rights of some minorities...and frankly, if you could get enough states to declare a Constitutional Convention at the same time...good luck getting them to agree to much of anything involving real, substantive change.
The outdated system is also one we are stuck with, because we basically painted ourselves into a corner. Of course, our Founding Parents could not possibly have foreseen the future where we now live...they did the best they could at the time...to account for changes in society and our nation...but they made too many assumptions that turned out not to be true...including that Office would be held only by people of good character. Public-minded servants, who sought to serve the best interests of We The People. But it has not turned out that way.
Politics has become, as you note, just one more "team sport" where undercutting the other side has become the only function...getting the People's business done takes a back seat. Biden has done some good things within this system, but he has had to have all the cards fall just right, and pull every parliamentary trick in the book to do it. Meanwhile, we plod along, and essentially have become governed more by Executive Orders than passed and considered legislation. And the lack of competitiveness in most Congressional Districts is one of the main reasons why. When you basically are immune to being held accountable at the ballot box...you no longer have any incentive to compromise or negotiate...you can just dig in your heels, refuse to budge, and act like an ass...like Lauren Boebert or Marjorie Taylor Greene or Mitch McConnell.
The normal health of this country has gotten worse, due to the increased stress we all live under...which has also affected mental health - and the systems we set up to provide mental health help - have been deliberately designed to fail the people who need it most. This goes back to Reagan, and his famous "The scariest words in the English language are 'hi, I am from the government and I'm here to help.'" Reagan started the idea that the government could not help people...and then did everything possible to begin the sabotage of government in order to "prove" his own words. And the decline began to where we are now.
Speaking now as a former candidate for office myself...I can tell you that you really DO need to have a certain level of "ego" in order to be willing to put yourself out there for the sort of examination you get when you toss your hat into the ring. I did fairly well here, because there isn't a lot in my past that isn't known...or that I'd care if it became known...and I do not take myself too seriously. I am very passionate about what I believe...and I fight for those things I believe in...but it isn't personal for me. For too many politicians, it is...because, for them, getting re-elected is Job Number One. The logic behind that thinking is "Well, I can't do anything for the people if I do not get re-elected" - well and good, but then, on getting re-elected they still do nothing for We The People....and this ia an excellent argument in favor of term limits.
But, again, we trip over our own selves...in that the Constitution would need to be amended to institute term limits...and it is very unlikely that those who currently hold power will vote to curtail their own. The only way to accomplish it...would be to "grandfather in" the current crop...which says as long as they remain elected officials, they are not subject to the term limits, but as soon as their seat becomes vacant, it is now a term-limited seat. Then you might get enough politicians to go along.
There is certainly a lot of discussion over HR 1 - The For The People Act...over whether or not it would pass Constitutional "muster" - once again, we are hamstrung by a document which was ratified with the best of intentions, and with ideals and assumptions that today no longer hold true. The specific argument is that States are granted the power to determine how they will hold elections...and that HR 1 would violate this....however, there is this:
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations
, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
And so it would seem that HR1 should pass Constitutional "muster" but that will undoubtedly be tested...and left to the interpretation of nine SCOTUS Justices...most of whom no longer are purists, and allow partisan considerations to creep into their decisions, and inform their thought processes...which can result in a different outcome than would seem straightforward. Frankly, Roberts has done a fairly decent job of walking that fine line...often ruling for our side, in spite of his conservative leanings, for example, the Bostock case - it is pretty clear that you cannot separate "sex" from sexual orientation or gender stereotypes...if you would not fire a woman for getting married to a man, but you would fire a man for doing same...it is sex discrimination - and similarly....if you would not fire a woman for wearing a dress, but you would fire a man for doing it...same deal. On the other hand, that comes down to how one interprets another's sex. For example, as a trans woman who is fully post-op...most reasonable people would consider me a woman...as well they should...there's nothing under my skirt that any other woman would not have...I dress and present as female. Yet, there are those who would argue that I am a man, because they refuse to countenance the notion one could be born into one body, yet with the heart, mind and soul of the other. It is just for issues like this...that the SCOTUS was intended to be the final word on...however, they were envisioned to be textualists who would apply the law as best as they could interpret the original intention. This no longer happens, in most cases.
Anyway, getting back to HR1 - it does nothing to insure any real change...just because one is registered to vote does not mean that they will vote...and, as we saw...increased turnout does not always favor our side. Of course, reasonable people like me would say that we should not be passing this with an eye towards it helping our side...but rather with an eye towards returning franchise to the People...to allow them to decide. Then the argument becomes one side wants to expand the voting franchise, whereas the other side wants to restrict it.
The great argument used by those who wish to restrict it is so-called voter fraud. So you can address this. Simply, everyone is registered, if not already registered...when they have contact with any government agency - and part of that process involves a photo ID with a QR code that is scannable...and serves as a Voter ID. Thus everyone could only vote once, and only in the place where they are registered.
The problem here remains that both sides...have a vested interest not in solving problems...but in using those problems as wedge issues to drive voters. This, for example, explains the recent spate of anti-transgender legislation happening in many states...intended to enrage and boil the blood of those more likely to vote GOP. of course these laws are solutions in search of a problem. Too many of the "problems" we have today are manufactured in just this way...and with the intent of driving one set of voters or the other.
There's no doubt life has become more complicated since the original Constitution was passed. Our Founding Parents saw that societal change was inevitable, and tried to give us a governing document designed to change with the times, unfortunately, they did so with the best of intentions...and made assumptions that no longer hold true...leaving us with an outdated and almost un-amendable document that more often serves to hamstring progress than to accommodate it.
The question then becomes...how do you resolve the issues causing the Constitution to hamstring progress, while at the same time guaranteeing the rights enshrined therein...and how do you get enough people to agree to change it? And that, my friend, is where I run out of answers.