User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2020

United States Electoral College

Hi. Here, I've reverted an edit of yours. I am not a topical expert, and I'm not a regular enough editor of this important article to want to jump in and insert a clarification here re "rare instances", but I see that the Appointment by state legislature section gives just one example postdating the civil war. I have not looked at the sources cited there to see what they say about this. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican

So even in the first decade of the 19th Century, the full locution "Democratic-Republican" was considered cumbersome, and most of the time, the party was referred to as "Republican". I don't think it's misleading to leave the repeated references (in articles like Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution) in the usage of the time; there's no ambiguity, given the timeframe. I'm not going to change that back, no reason to, but maybe it's unnecessary? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think "Republican" is misleading for younger readers and those who are not familiar with the DR party. To them, "Republican" can only mean today's Republican Party. It could be shortened in other ways; for example, "the party" and "it". SMP0328. (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding electoral wipeouts

See Draft:Avoiding electoral wipeouts for special voting system for Washington DC, which has yet to be verified in the case of DC. ----MountVic127 (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:District of Columbia voting rights# ----MountVic127 (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Please

... pursue this. --Brogo13 (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Review request Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hi. I thank You for reviewing and correcting my July 18, 2020 edits to the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Can you please review and correct in similar fashion my 2020-07-18 Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution edits? Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll get to it some time today. Good job regarding both articles. SMP0328. (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I give thanks to you for your compliment regarding the above mentioned Seventh and Eighth Amendment edits as well as for your 2020-07-19 Eighth Amendment review. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Together, we'll keep those, and similar, articles in good shape. SMP0328. (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Eighth Amendment re-edit

Just interested, I was largely drawing on the information available on the page in question and trying to make the article more readable. As it stands, the article first says that the court has never heard an argument on applying the Excessive Fines Clause to states before and then in the next sentence describes a time when the court unanimously ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause could in fact be applied to states. My edit was intended to clear up that the Court had in fact made a major ruling on the matter, and to incorporate the previous sentence's information, which I took to be true, into the response. If this is not according to Wikipedia policy, then I apologize for my edit, but I believe that my change made the article more accurate and did not require any additional citation, as I simply reworded what had been previously on the page. All the best.

2020-11-10 Review request First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hi. Between October 24, 2020 and November 9, 2020 I edited the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The edits entail the "Freedom of the press", "Free exercise of religion", "Establishment of religion" and "Religious liberty clauses" sections. Can you please Can you please review and correct the aforementioned sections so that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution article remains in good shape? Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your 2020-11-11 review and correction of the First Amendment article. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy to help. Thank you for the improvements you've made to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to reciprocate your thanks. As a non-native speaker of the English language I'm pleased that you as native speaker of the English language review and correct my edits. In doing so you not only improve the Wikipedia articles (I edited), but also my own work. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

US intellectual tradition in political reforms

Hey. Thank you for your considered statements over the last couple weeks at Talk:United States Electoral College. I wanted to expand on a string of Congressional reform addressing state mal-apportionment in federal elections. I noted previously, efforts to curb state majority abuses included three Acts of Congress passing both House and Senate in an effort to shape political communities that resembled the underlying populations geographically, socially, and ideologically (the culturally-related basket of religion, ethnic practice, and politics): contiguity (1842), and compactness (1872), including equal population (1911) (but only for a few sessions at a time, and never enforced).

If we expand the observation from listing Acts of Congress to exploring who was sponsoring them, the topic takes on an interesting aspect of US political intellectual history. The 1842 legislation was sponsored by Jacksonian Democrats, the 1872 by Lincoln Republicans, and the 1911 by Republican and Democratic Progressives. Wiki-fencing on Talk pages notwithstanding, I understand the impulse to the National Popular Vote generally to be aligned with that intellectual tradition. To take another page from the same democratizing impulse, if the states abuse their Constitutional duty to elect US Senators by their legislatures for thirty consecutive years as they did in the Gilded Age, then the American people will pass a Constitutional Amendment taking the abused trust away from the bad actors subverting their democratic republic.

So it is, that if the states do not refrain from the egregious anti-democratic practice of winner-take-all selection of their presidential electors, I expect that in due time the American people will take away the state legislature role in choosing a president, in one way or another. I will regret the loss of political community that might follow uniform standards for redistricting by equal population, contiguous boundaries, compact shapes, and respecting political boundaries aligned with the state geography. But the voting people are sovereign, at the very least, even if the non-voting populations of the voters' neighbors who are immigrants, young, and transients are left out of the national equation the future.

But whenever a persistent political majority takes form of the same opinion, it must be allowed to prevail, or we lose the American experiment that the London Economist last week noted is the political reason that Americans respect themselves and why others around the globe in turn respect them. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

2020-12-09 Review request First Amendment to the United States Constitution and 2020-12-12 Review request Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hi. Between December 4, 2020 and December 5, 2020 I edited the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The edits encompass the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause section. Can you please review and correct the aforementioned section so that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution article remains in good shape? Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

When I have time I'll look it over. SMP0328. (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause section on December 12, 2020. Can you please also review my Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution edits between December 12, 2020 at 05:26 o'clock and December 12, 2020 at 15:04 o'clock? The edits encompass the Eighth Amendments Cruel and unusual punishments Clause section. Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause section on December 12, 2020. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, but it was been nice of you not to simply mostly revert my review. A wikilink should not cover most of a sentence. SMP0328. (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I decided not to revert because I was only interested in restoring the missing wikilink to the the Opinion of the Court in Church in Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah and narrowing the scope of the wikilink. This was a little bit trickyier than expected, but nonetheless possible. Can you take please a look at the above mentioned the Eighth Amendments Cruel and unusual punishments Clause edits? Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)