So basically Pelosi is setting the Democrats up to get the bitch smacked again because she doesn't want to listen.

The folks elected Rep. Omar for a reason. AOC handily beat an incumbent in NYC. Chitown just elected a Lori Lightfoot, a gay Black woman for mayor.

People are fucking tired of Democrats trying to appease bigots that don't give a shit about maintaining civility.

People praise Pelosi for her political acumen, but she's still tone def and ineffective in an actual fight.

It annoys the fuck outta me that Dems seem to forget 🍊 lost the election.

The only reason he is president is because of some antiquated failsafe slave owners lobbied their way onto the books to ensure we'd never have an actual representative democracy.

The keep trying to negotiate with this fool instead of going at his neck, which ironically is accelerating the browning of American government because we're all tired of white people.

But Pelosi wants to ice skate up hill.


an interesting thing i noticed recently while thinking about this, is that, in some ways, the electoral college does (very weakly) incentivize candidate participation in states that would be under-represented, because somebody has to go and win those electors.

i think the solution is actually to keep the election as a 50-state split, but eliminate the electors themselves, so you have 1 state = 1 win, whoever wins the most states wins the election.

this more strongly incentivizes candidate participation in under-represented states (the "fly over" states), while still being an effective direct election of the president.

i think, ultimately, we need to have an electoral system that brings all states into play. the dems blew off the midwest in 2016, which worked well for trump. we need a system where candidates and their various support infrastructure aren't incentivized to write off states as automatic losses.

@kaniini Or we can just have one vote count as one vote.

You're over thinking it.


if it works that way, then none of the candidates will go anywhere except for the urban cores, as there is an enhanced incentive to win those voters.

that leads to people who do not live in these largest areas to remain disenfranchised, as the candidates never visit and have no incentive to care.

@kaniini That is already happening now in areas that enjoy disproportionate representation because of the electoral college. In essence, you're making the same argument white dudes made after Emancipation for it.

And in terms of areas such as the midwest which your oddly fixated on, they are 'disenfranchised' because they keep voting for fucked up policy, not because they don't have adequate representation.

We literally have another racist as president as proof of this.


I know the EC is quite flawed and would love to get rid of it, I just want to make sure that candidates actually visit with as much of the constituents as possible. No objection to an aggregate vote if it comes with reforms to ensure that.

One thought I had was a requirement to visit each state where a candidate is seeking ballot access. In other words, make the big 2 candidates play by the same rules as third party candidates.

(as for why I mention the Midwest in particular, the Dems have continuously written off the Midwest since the 80s. there are lots of voters who could be energized into voting for Democrat candidates, if they would actually show up and have a rally. labor unions are strong in OK despite right to work for example.)

@kaniini Could be is the key here. That idea has never really materialized.

And the Midwest is over-represented in political influence anyway, so this point is moot.

@kaniini Uhm, not incentivizing certain regions would be a good step in the right direction.

Candidates having to campaign because every vote is of equal value seems like the solution.

I'm not sure why you're trying to complicate it, but it's not.


well I agree that is the right solution but the question is how do we get there?

if a candidate can win by simply going to the top 30 cities and campaigning there alone (70m voters), thats a lot of voters left out by the strategic models these parties use.

what I do think is that making it a straight election would help third parties that are disenfranchies by how the DNC and RNC do business, so maybe that would be a positive

@kaniini That will never happen because as we know most Americans don't vote. So limiting your opportunities to just populous locations would not only be suicide, but just stupid.

Equalizing the value of each vote is the no-brainer solution. If a candidate chooses to only go to certain areas, they'll pay for it.

With the electoral college it's the opposite.

@kaniini @Are0h but
that's incentivizing candidates to target states with lower populations b/c that's less people they need to win over

then you could hypothetically win the presidency by winning the bottom 26 states by population, which have a combined pop. of ~66 million, about 20% of the US pop.

that's just as unfair, but in a different way

@shadowfacts @kaniini And again, this can easily be solved by just having a straight vote.

It's not complicated. It seems there's just this inherent fear of non-white people outvoting white people, so there has to be some rule to keep this from happening, nationally and locally if we look at how prevalent gerrymandering is being used as well.

@kaniini The problem with this is you get situations like mine, where my vote in Oklahoma counts the same as ten votes in California. Why do I get more say in Tulsa than my brother does in LA?

@BalooUriza that's a fair point. I guess the question is how do we actually force politicians to show up in every media market?

@kaniini Don't. Regional representation is what congress is for.

@BalooUriza speaking of regional representation how do you like our regional representation here in OK?

@kaniini The most polite thing I can say is that it definitely shows what a 20% average voter participation rate can do for a group determined to game the system.

@BalooUriza it used to be worse. Brookside is at least a reliable Dem district. too bad gerrymandering has cancelled that out at the national level.

politics Show more

politics Show more

politics Show more

politics Show more

politics Show more

politics Show more

@kaniini @Are0h this is ridiculous. This would just intensify fighting for purple toss up states, and do nothing to persuade candidates to reach out to conservative rural California voters or liberal urban Texas voters.

That's the argument of an essay called "Math Against Tyranny":

In this context it's also worth recalling that historian Sean Wilentz, one of the biggest critics of the EC, has come around somewhat:

Having said that, I'm inclined to agree with @Are0h: like the Senate, it's a stupid institution that gives outsized clout to white folks in low-population-density states.


The dems would be those rich folks in slave times taking about 'Abolition is a goal we should all aspire to. BUT in the mean time lets fight to get them work gloves!'🙄

@denikombucha Like if y'all can't get unified against a dude like 🍊 y'all just aren't worth a damn.

This dude and his cronies are lying _constantly_ but they're still trying to find an angle rather than go at this fool's neck.

As disgusted as I am with the GOP, I'm just as revulsed by the Dems because even when they have the high ground, they straight get punked. Again and again.


Y would they go for his neck? Every last one of them directly benefited from the same 45 tax breaks they railed as inhumane. I haven't seen a single on of them give it back, have u 👀? Someone can call you a bitch to your face but if they do it while handing you a cool 10mil, its hard to stay mad at them.

@denikombucha And I'm fine with that part of it, but just be honest about it.

Don't tell me about RESISTANCE and then say he's not worth going after. Just take your check and go.

Either go after that dude or just admit you're complicit. Either would require courage that the Dems seems like they just don't have.


Oh they ain't ever gonna do that, and risk letting that High Horse go? LMAO they love 'being the adult in the room' bout as much as they love them $$$

@denikombucha That's the thing. They aren't the adult in the room.

If they were, they wouldn't be trying to negotiate with a bigot.

People support them just because they are slightly less nuts than the GOP.

That's literally it.


Thats the thing w the folks in congress. None of their actual ideologies are grounded in concrete reality. Not a single one. If it was we woulda had a militaristic GND 20-30 years ago.

Politics hot take Show more

re: Politics hot take Show more


Folks forget that RGB and Scalia were bffs. They vacationed together. We hold her up as some feminist hero but she touted her close relationship with a man that said Black ppl have smaller brains. And the same is for the rest of the dems. Its not that they don't try, its not that they're incompetent, they're INCREDIBLY savvy. We're just asking them to get the faces of folks they luncheon with and have the same inlaws.


Makes me think two things:

a) so much Democrat political acumen only applies when everyone plays by the rules, which hasn’t really happened in this millennium

b) in general, actually holding people accountable for their actions would be a step toward dismantling white supremacy and she’s clearly not gonna go for that

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Social @ PV

Social is the primary social media platform for the forth coming fourth version of Play Vicious, a new initiative built to bring attention to the plethora of creative acts that don't get the shine they deserve.
For more details about the project and how to support, go here.