I'd support potential Electoral College reform when Congress bans insider trader amongst its own members. So never.
It would require a constitutional amendment, which Republicans will never support because the current system gives them more power than they deserve. I'd support both of those, but they are totally unrelated.
Yeah I know. Shitty mood. In all seriousness, it's probably a good thing that presidential campaigns aren't entirely spent catering to California, Texas, Florida and New York. Sure, they have higher populations, but states have to be treated equally and not like fiefdoms.
In semi-related hilarity, it came out that Walz owns no equities at all, his retirement is entirely his various pensions (military, teacher, congressman, governor), and the same "Nancy Pelosi stock tracker" accounts were like "how could we possibly vote for a man who doesn't understand the markets?"
Yeah I noticed that. Hopefully that's a good sign and not an indicator that he's storing gold bars in his closet. But he's not from New Jersey so it shouldn't be an issue. In an alternate reality, Charlie Baker would be running for President and I would be delighted to vote for him. But nope, we're stuck waiting to see who seems slightly less-retarded the day before Election Day.
Charlie Baker should have been the runaway Republican nominee in either 2020 or 2024. Wildly popular and successful governor of a meaningful state, with a demonstrated ability to govern in a bipartisan fashion and win independent and even Democratic voters. He polled below the margin of error at CPAC and he took one look at the national Republican base and was like "fuck this, I'd rather deal with that den of corruption we call college sports."
seeing the opposite here. Every super MAGA person I know, which is literally all of my inlaws, much of my immediate family, and a lot of my coworkers, have all been open for a good long time (pre-dating the recent implosion) about their disdain for trump and wanting to stay home during the election. My inlaws still wear MAGA shit, but are more loyal to the cult than trump. I liken it to saying you're christian but not going to church and treating people like shit. So I think that what people see is gonna be highly location-specific, and not necessarily indicative of a larger trend. I still don't trust polls, though it's kinda hard to ignore the type crowds Kamala is drawing and how diverse it's becoming. The biggest unknown, to me, is how many of trump's base died directly of covid or other related illnesses, and is that enough to tip the scales? Like I said above though, I'm not trusting anything. I hope it'll be a landslide, but I'm voting as soon as I can.
I like our current system. If the side you like loses, you can claim the election was rigged/interfered with, and if the side you hate loses, you can troll them for making excuses about it being rigged/interfered with.
That's why I posted about Bob Good being beaten in his primary. It shows Trump voters are fired up and showing up to vote. And, also, doing what Trump tells them to, by voting for an election denier. Sure, it was a close primary, that came down to a recount. It shouldn't have been close, is what I'm saying.
I like our system better. It eliminates the excuse for excuses, and all that election-rigging paranoia nonsense simply does not exist here. Our elections are also not a perpetual event to be discussed— it is over in weeks, the way it should be. The Brits are even better at it. The t-shirts, the bump stickers, the decals, the overall merch, the division of sides that resorts to violence at times, etc. Politics isn’t just Hollywood for ugly people, it’s also the new sports. Complete with people who wear their team’s jersey in public and get tattoos and dedicate podcasts and decorated rooms in their house to their ideology. I have like, one Blue Jays jersey and three hats and have been a fan since 1983.
I buy Red Sox gear frequently…at least since 2004. Ha. But yes, I think the US should have a system that requires more partisan coalition, like parliamentary governments.
You can’t argue with “one man, one vote.” If it’s kept that way, in the end the favourite wins. People always act like your country was created in small towns and therefore more power should be given to those people. No, it was born in Boston and Philadelphia— cities. People here get upset when Toronto or Vancouver manipulate an election—but—, that’s where most of the people live, you assholes.
Remember kids, the electoral college was instituted because one man one vote was unacceptable to slave owners. Trump has had a ton of luck, looking no further than an assassination attempt, and escaping all the legal foibles.
So they say. I don’t believe a word out of that failure of a campaign. They will do anything to create more controversy to try to muddy the waters. Might be time for them to conjure up another assassination attempt.
They sent them a 271 page RNC internal document about JD Vance's vulnerabilities. Presumably, all just pictures of couches.
I'd like to see SCOTUS reverse their ruling on campaign donations, but file that under never happening
No shit. Anyone worthwhile doesn't want anything to do with it. He was the highest approval-rated governor in the nation, and a Republican in a blue state. But fuck us. Meh. Parliamentary systems are bureaucratic messes and it would take a top-to-bottom remaking of the entire system where we don't have first-past-the-post winners. Our structure encourages two parties duking it out. I don't think voters would ever be onboard with electing a party rather than a person.