The issues with Ellison need to be called out, any reasonable person would agree with that. I'm not following his issues in detail because he's not in my state. But, if I were in his state, just on the optics he wouldn't get my vote and I honestly think he should remove himself from consideration and face whatever charges he has coming. I will be openly honest I'm concerned about elected people with questionable baggage getting elected, but at least in that case the ability to remove them from said role is much easier. Yes still a position of power/influence, but it is not comparable to a federal judge.
The ability to remove a sitting judge with a lifetime appointment at any level is stacked in a way that it while not impossible is very close to that in terms of what it would take for them to be forced out of office.
While Ellison isn't going for a Federal position, people should be concerned because he is a sitting Co-chair of the DNC and he is a US Representative so he does have an impact at the federal level. It's hypocritical for the DNC to keep him there, and he should be removed. Just like an officer when they are involved in a shooting, officials (elected and appointed) should be removed until an investigation has been done.
You say you're a centrist. I consider myself a moderate. I'm left leaning on Social Issues (health care, gay rights, women's contraceptive issues) I lean right on most Economic Issues (taxes, trade agreements,wage negotiations). The real toss up for me is in regards to Military Issues (spending/war powers and so forth). So as it stems with social issues or as you put it personal liberties those are issues that can and will be deeply affected if the balance keeps moving right of center. As I noted in my previous response I didn't have issues with Gorsich despite being right leaning justice, just like I didn't have an issue with Garland the left leaning justice that wasn't even given a hearing. And as I mentioned, they could have withdrawn Kavanaugh and still put up a right leaning justice candidate. I just don't think he was the right candidate for the "right" to go so all in over.
For me, I don't view the typical definitions as being specific to one party or the other. Remember, JFK was a devout Catholic, yet was a member of the Democratic party which caused a lot of controversy and fear of church mingling with the state. There's also Republicans who are pro-choice, and I think there's only a select few who would have ill-will towards the gay community. So, there's exceptions there, and somehow these definitions of which party is associated to what are incorrectly defined. The same goes for wealth, I would venture a guess that there's as many [mb]illionaires who lean left as there are on the right. Probably more given how much of Hollywood, athletes and the tech industry typically lean left. Yet, why aren't the 99% screaming about unfairness there? Especially when Hillary charges more than $300,000 per speech (average is 20 minutes). But, again, it's easy to overlook the "evils" people are against when it's your own candidate.
As mentioned, I don't like Kavanaugh and I don't think he should have been appointed. I even went so far as to say that these people should be heavily vetted before they are nominated for a position, or when they get the official support of the political party. But it'll never happen.
You're correct neither party is shining example of what is right or good for the Country. And you express many ideals for what the US government should be like, but that isn't the structure or balance that we have. And there has been well designed efforts to make sure that it doesn't happen. One side does a better job of protecting and increasing their control than the other and all you have to do is really dig into voting district demographics. We can also look at how population density of say the electoral college really gives more "power" to States where less people live and "penalizes" States where more people live.
I looked into how much the RNC and DNC have been in power at the Federal level. Learned an
interesting bit of information regarding the so-called "shift in the balance of power" that so many fear. If that page is correct, there never was a balance of power to begin with. I'll leave it to you and others to read it instead of my giving the details.
I can't speak to the redistricting aspect as I haven't looking into it and would prefer to not speak wrongly on it. I do know there are two mandates at the Federal level which are supposed to govern redistricing: Equal population distribution for each district within a particular state and that there shall be no discrimination based upon race or ethnicity. This second I would imagine is very difficult to balance out given minorities typically live in higher density areas instead of suburbs or rural areas. So, it is either unfairly a minority centric vote for the district or it gets split and unfairly diluted with others. Almost seems a no-win situation.
As to state with lower population having equal votes as those with higher populations, that is Constitutionally setup and has been since its inception because it was a problem early on in our country's history as well as before then in other countries. This is to ensure that states have equal say in the matter, and comes from years of issues where lesser population centers are constantly overrun and neglected by those with more. Look at some of the larger states with very rural areas. Many of those places are barely surviving and get very little assistance from Federal and state aid. Again, kind of a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
The money and power that is in the lobbying/partisan driving nature of our politics is one that is so entrenched it will never be broken. Or why when the stakes get to rough (i.e. they have pissed off their electorate enough that even their strongest supporters want them gone) the elected official bows out of "public" service and waltzes into a six figure+ "private" sector job. Same with military officials, and anyone with clearances.
Personally, I have no issues if a public official leaves and goes into a high-paying job. If you're as you say you are, then you shouldn't either as it's market and experience driven and people are willing to pay them that. Where I have issues, is when our elected officials take money while they are in office and become very wealthy. Or, significantly more than when they first entered.
While I thik he was one of our worst Presidents, I have a huge amount of respect for Jimmy Carter in his
post-Presidency life. Not only for some of the things he's done to help improve the lives of others. But, because he's lived such a humble life since leaving office. The article I linked shows the kind of person he is compared to those who've been president after him.
I'd hate to see what Trump is going to cost us per year after his term is over. At least he'll be out of office. But, I'd still be concerned regarding the level of Nat'l Secrets he knows and what may be done to make money off them, sell, etc.
