mtutiger

Quite a statement from the same people that complain about sneering liberals who look down on average Americans.

The big thing is that all the lawsuits happened after the election (ie. before rules could be changed in the states). To me, that's where the danger lies.... what if these states and their legislatures pass laws that allow them to select the electors versus the people? This was shot down in Arizona recently, but who knows, maybe it's something that's attempted after the 2022 midterms in some of these places.

Whoever does the projections should be sacked lol

Rudy Giuliani, who seeked to cancel millions of votes in across multiple states, being defended against 'cancel culture'. Irony.

It's ironic given that Russia, IIRC, has lower church attendance rates than the good ol' US of A.

Which genius thought that rehabbing an insurrectionist was a good idea?

Where's Archie to tell us now selling more American LNG actually projects weakness?

I just don't think he expected as much of a unified approach as he has gotten not only internally here in the states, but with NATO states at large. On the former point, as much intransigence exists and as much as guys like Tucker talk about how we need to leave Russia alone, the reality is that the majority of GOP politicians seem to be either relatively behind the President's approach in terms of moving troops to Eastern Europe or advocate for being more aggressive (ie.things like Sanctions pre-invasion). In other words, I think he expected a lot more division in the US than has manifested itself. On the latter point, NATO countries seem relatively attuned to their aggression, particularly more than they were a week and a half ago. Countries are sending supplies and aid to Ukraine. And even Germany, which has been relatively beholden to Russia because of North Stream 2, seems to be signaling that an invasion would follow with sanctions. Putin expected a divided west and ultimately he bet wrong. I dont know if he will invade or not, but I suspect that the goal from a diplomatic POV is to come up with an off-ramp so he can save face / declare a victory.

I would just add that one thing the EC does do is that it badly disincentivizes the development of viable third party options. It'd be nice if the system were ever reformed (it won't be) that it would rethink the parts of the system that cause that to happen... for instance, that an election where 270 isn't achieved goes to the House who then selects the President. Instead, how about the top two EC vote getters participate in a runoff election two weeks later in that instance?

Anybody starting to get the sense that the reaction from the west isn't what Russia was expecting when they started escalating?

Wyoming Rule This would be the best option IMO.... basically, the size of Congressional districts would be based on the smallest possible population for a district, which is Wyoming. Would result in 573 seats, but would be more proportional and would reduce the population of the average district, the hope being better representation for people in those districts.

Also, why should votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia matter more than in the rest of the country?

Even if this were the case (which I don't believe it is), under the current system, don't Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wyoming, both Dakota's, Rhode Island, Delaware, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Maine, West Virginia have to stfu and just accept the President that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia select for them? The current system is what it is, it's not gonna change, but this idea that a national popular vote ***** over the rest of the country more than the EC does, just can't agree with that. I'll admit maybe my perspective is different though because I live in a state where my vote is pretty worthless...

I'd be curious to know myself, but I suspect the answer to this is "yes".

I disagree with you on this one. There are too many voters in the rest of the country to just campaign on the coasts and expect to win an election. The more likely result is that Rs and Ds would be more incentivized to visit places where they don't necessarily excel in order to maximize their margins. You'd see Rs visiting places like California and Ds spending time in places like Omaha or Kansas City or OKC or Little Rock trying to get votes. As opposed to our current system, where candidates spend time in eight states and ignore the rest.

I'd argue that a national popular vote would do a lot more to get parties to campaign in front of people they don't normally cater to given that about 90% of the states are flat out ignored during the general election campaign under this current system

If you are a Democrat living in Overland Park, Kansas, you know. If you are a Republican living in Bakersfield you know. Since you brought up Texas, prior to this past election, I knew ahead of time my vote didn't matter. Its a stupid system for electing Presidents that, in itself, has done a lot of damage and has divided the populace as red states and blue states. If one were starting this experiment from scratch, they'd never consider utilizing it.

Except that isn't what we have... rather, we have a system where your vote only matters in 6-8 states and is irrelevant in the rest.

This seems a little too on the nose...

Rules for thee, not for me... Texas edition

Maybe I'm blind, but for the most part, I don't see the hatred in day to day life. And I work with and interact with people who don't think like me quite a bit. But the internet and social media amplifies a lot of differences. I wish we could go back to simpler times when that wasn't the case.

This seems like a buried lede to me. Unless I'm missing something