Sounds like we’ve heard this song before. 
1 Like
The losers in a fair election whining? Yes.
5 Likes
For me, this is a deal breaker unless a federal system for preventing gerrymandering is adopted. Too easy to abuse the system otherwise to create maps that are vastly different from the actual popular vote in the whole state. In some states, you could have a 55-45 split result in 75/25 of the EC votes. If you look at the models for the 2012 and 2016 elections, the ones that have EC votes based on congressional districts (either majority or popular per CD) are much closer to the current winner takes all results than a closer correlation with the popular vote in each state. Plus it’s not like your CD elector would be effectively representing you for anything outside of this one time vote so the idea of a CD specific elector is a bit moot (unlike a representative or senator whom you can call to make your voice heard in their decisions).
Take CA for example for the 2016 election. EC results for proportional per congressional district would be 48/7/0(third party). Not very different from 55/0 currently. But EC results for popular per state would be 34/18/5(third party). The latter seems more accurate representation for the CA voters.
I just think that the majority in a state should get some sort of advantage. Otherwise, winning by a few % or losing by the same margin may not matter at all as long as the margin is less than 1 electoral vote. Take Nevada and it’s 6 votes for example. Each 16.7% of the popular votes would be worth an electoral vote. Unless your margin of victory was more than 58-42, you’d never see anything else than 3/3 for EC.
Hahaha. (Sorry). 
Sure, you could call and lobby them with some bribes campaign contributions, or you could call and leave a message to get a cookie cutter form response.
1 Like
At least there is a supposed function for you to call them. Call them right before their term is up and you may actually get through. But not really any purpose for the same situation for state electors, especially in states that prohibit them from being faithless.
1 Like
2 Likes
I see there are some peaceful protests at the capitol today. I’m sure we can all agree that, even if they’re armed, they need space to air their grievances. Also, masks aren’t required for protesting, they told me that this summer.
I think Judge Garland is a good choice, Biden’s third. I also liked General Austin and Janet Yellen.
The rest of his cabinet looks like a catastrophic bunch of Hooples, refugees from the Star Wars bar scene! They will do great damage to our country.
Each thing you said is false…
Yes, there is no comparison to be made (except every point you’ve made, which are all stark differences)…
There was no breaking into the capital building with guns and confederate flags during the peaceful protests in Washington. There were some fence tussles near the WH, but not breaches. There was no violence at all when chemical weapons were used to clear the peaceful protests during the day for Trump’s jaunt for a satinistic imagery (holding an upside down Bible) photo op in front of a burned church, and the general resigned afterwards because of his complicity.
The Washington peaceful protests were outdoors, no maskless armed invasions of federal government buildings… it’s insanity to try to equate the two.
1 Like
Regarding the protests by Trump supporters:
It’s a little late. Where were these people when illegal laws were passed in PA and when equally wrong agreements were entered into in GA. That was the time to become riled up. But back then Trump failed to take organized, targeted, definitive action. He was outsmarted and outflanked by a bunch of very smart Democrats who care nothing about illegality. Instead their sole focus is on winning . . . . at any cost.
Trump characteristically turns away from, and refuses to recognize, the depraved rantings of the political forces arrayed against him. He goes forward as if their indifference to law does not even exist.
At least a portion of Trump’s blindness proceeds from his having come up in New York City. It was fine for him to have enjoyed the fray back then with the likes of David Dinkins or Chuck Schumer or a host of other such lefties. Those interactions desensitized Trump, but it did not matter because far, far less was on the line back then. Today it’s different. Today, from the jump, Trump needed a built-in suspicion of, and concern regarding, the left. But every time he comes up at first instead with misplaced trust. And by the time he catches on, they have buried him.
A violent, armed mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol Building Wednesday, entering the House and Senate chambers and forcing legislators and staff to take shelter.
"The protesters, many of whom were armed and had not passed through a metal detector, broke through a police barricade and entered the Statuary Hall in the Capitol. "
They entered the Senate chamber. They forced people to flee.
So much for law and order.
1 Like
They’re storming through the halls, searching offices, and carrying the Confederate flag…
And Trump is encouraging them.
You know if these people were black, the police would have opened fire.
Remember how Trump sent Federal agents to assault people walking peacefully on the streets last summer on the excuse they were near Federal buildings?
1 Like
They would have let them burn and loot towns for months on end and not arrest most of them either. No need to hypothesize - that already happened. How many BLM rioters were killed by the cops? Not retroactive criminal martyrs like Floyd who ate too much of his stash.
So you’re saying it’s okay by you to behave like this?
1 Like
Can’t say I did not see this coming but that’s still a new low. So much for defending law and order when it’s inconvenient.
4 Likes
Perhaps relevant
You don’t have much credibility when you defend riots and lawlessness yourself.
3 Likes
Seditious conspiracy
And the sitting president is silent during a terrorist attack on Congress. Despicable, how far we’ve fallen.
But really it’s not imPotus who’s responsible. It’s the sitting members of the Senate who voted against removing the criminal from office or even seeking testimony or enforcing subpoenas. We’re in this position because they failed to fulfill their oaths of office.
2 Likes
Anecdotal at best considering the source and still amounts only to whataboutism deflection. Even disregarding the vast difference in scale between that anecdote and the current rioting and invasion of the highest democratic institutions in the land at the tacit invitation of POTUS, two wrongs still don’t make a right no matter how you slice it.
3 Likes