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.

@Are0h

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.

@Are0h

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 @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
Follow

@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.

@Are0h @kaniini oh, I completely agree, popular vote is far and away the best option
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.