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.

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.