One of the biggest things is that it distracts from governing. In the US, a very large percentage of a legislators efforts are spent on campaigning for the next election. This is especially the case for representatives who are elected every two years, where for many, there is no time when it's not campaign season. It is also hugely expensive thus giving unfair advantage to candidates who either have more money or have wealthier supporters.

I firmly believe that having more restricted campaign times combined with having saner finance rules (many of which we used to have) as well as the media fairness laws that we used to have (until they were gotten rid of in the Reagan era but this also ties into the finance rules since having billion dollar media corporations shilling for you is unquestionably helping to finance your campaign) would go a very long way to making our elections more fair and our governance far better. But when you take the path of anyone can campaign for anyone else at any time, saying anything they want, we get what we have today.

We shouldn't have our elections take multiple years to run. In other places there are strict time limits on when campaigning can start and this on the level of weeks before an election rather than years.

Do we do that with all of the losing candidates? What happens when only one person is on the ballot? What about the write-ins? Can I screw a losing candidate that I loathe by moving a bunch of signs onto public property?

Proper roundabouts work reasonably well with pedestrians in most places but in PGH, the attitude towards pedestrians of most people who drive is utterly atrocious. On top of that I have never seen any enforcement by police for failure to yield to pedestrians even when it happens right in front of them (and similarly I see police fail to yield to pedestrians as well). So I don't think the pedestrian experience is going to be good at a roundabout in PGH but I don't think it's going to be any worse than it is anywhere else in the city.

There are many proponents of this. There are also lots of people who are deeply against this who also have valid reasons. This exists in PGH in places where pedestrians at the light tend to outnumber automobiles at the light.

Nobody said that. But you do need to make it so that a reasonable person (even one who was trespassing) wouldn't fall in it accidentally. Because lots of trespass is legal and sometimes even required.

The biggest problem with this is that we don't have an affirmative right to vote. What we do have is a bunch of negative rights, mostly the right to not be discriminated against for x, y, and z for the purpose of voting. We do this because it is still relatively popular to discriminate based on other reasons (eg not allowing a person to vote while in prison for a felony). So people can use the fact that we don't have this affirmative right to vote to chip away at it to get much of the same effect as other forms of voter discrimination.

The only issue with that is that in many places, especially cities, there can be long lines to vote which will deter many potential voters. At the polling place I worked at on the morning of the 2020 presidential election there was an hour long wait to vote and it was that short because roughly 1/2 of the votes cast at that district were cast by mail.

I agree that it's not legal currently. The problem is that PA is unique in the manner and extent that it undercuts or even disallows enforcement of its laws against many forms of dangerous driving. And I don't know how this is going to be fixed because driving dangerously with respect to other people without suffering any consequences for it seems to be wildly popular in this state and with the state legislature.