This is a thoughtful, intelligent critique of both parties and our society as a whole. *Le sigh* It's truly embarrassing, childish, and shameful to equate Trump to Hitler. And those who hold Kamala as a queen of compassion and reason (even more humiliating is to vote for her based on her immutable characteristics).
So during that MSG rally Tucker Carlson made a crack to the extent of "of COURSE a Kamala victory would be TOTALLY legit, because EVERYONE is SO excited to vote for the first Samoan Malaysian Californian ex-DA!! Hah! Hah! Hah!" - which is predictably bad in the ways we've come to expect of Carlson, but also a deeply bizarre read on the American electorate. As though anyone is *excited* to vote, instead of throwing up their hands and going "I guess!" like you and I - as though the median Trump voter, even, is showing up to a 6-hour rally. (At least at a Kamala rally you get to see Springsteen!!)
I'm also on team "we should probably do better than the Electoral College but the popular vote ain't it." IMO the best system would be having every state function like Nebraska (2 EC votes for winning the popular vote in the state, 1 EC vote for each Congressional district you win in the state)... but that's because unlike you, I don't think you want turnout to be that big of a deciding factor! (Suppressing turnout among... certain demographics... has historically been a big problem in America.)
I think if people felt more like their vote mattered they'd be more inclined to vote. Also, if we made it much easier to vote.
Make everyone automatically registered to vote when they turn 18 and make election day a holiday and turnout goes way up, mostly because it combats the most obvious forms of voter suppression.
I think you're definitely right about these people misreading the electorate. But it's weird that both parties seem to have no idea how to appeal to people. I think this is partly because the election only comes down to a handful of counties, which is absolutely insane.
Feelin ya. Particularly about the electoral vote apportionment (wrote about it recently on my own spot ). But also about expanding the House, which would also be a very big positive step. You skipped an important additional reason though: it has been set at its current number of reps for a century, even as the pop. has grown enormously. The point needs to be made again and again until it gets more attention: by that alone we actually have less democracy than we used to. But we can do something about it. And apportionment and expansion are much better options than scrapping the electoral system entirely. That would require a re-write of the constitution, which could only be achieved by a constitutional convention, which would put everything in play among what would certainly be deeply divided delegates. With the way things are now the USA would probably not survive such a re-set. It might dissolve more or less peacefully, but, as you noted, people in states that produce food efficiently with relatively small populations would have little reason to remain in a new union that would sideline them politically.
Well, there were several ongoing wars. It is true that he didn't start any *new* wars, though he was quite vocal then and now about essentially wanting to go to war with Iran.
I think the inadequacies of the Abraham Accords are best exemplified by the current state of the Middle East. Not exactly peaceful cohabitation!
This is a thoughtful, intelligent critique of both parties and our society as a whole. *Le sigh* It's truly embarrassing, childish, and shameful to equate Trump to Hitler. And those who hold Kamala as a queen of compassion and reason (even more humiliating is to vote for her based on her immutable characteristics).
So during that MSG rally Tucker Carlson made a crack to the extent of "of COURSE a Kamala victory would be TOTALLY legit, because EVERYONE is SO excited to vote for the first Samoan Malaysian Californian ex-DA!! Hah! Hah! Hah!" - which is predictably bad in the ways we've come to expect of Carlson, but also a deeply bizarre read on the American electorate. As though anyone is *excited* to vote, instead of throwing up their hands and going "I guess!" like you and I - as though the median Trump voter, even, is showing up to a 6-hour rally. (At least at a Kamala rally you get to see Springsteen!!)
I'm also on team "we should probably do better than the Electoral College but the popular vote ain't it." IMO the best system would be having every state function like Nebraska (2 EC votes for winning the popular vote in the state, 1 EC vote for each Congressional district you win in the state)... but that's because unlike you, I don't think you want turnout to be that big of a deciding factor! (Suppressing turnout among... certain demographics... has historically been a big problem in America.)
I think if people felt more like their vote mattered they'd be more inclined to vote. Also, if we made it much easier to vote.
Make everyone automatically registered to vote when they turn 18 and make election day a holiday and turnout goes way up, mostly because it combats the most obvious forms of voter suppression.
I think you're definitely right about these people misreading the electorate. But it's weird that both parties seem to have no idea how to appeal to people. I think this is partly because the election only comes down to a handful of counties, which is absolutely insane.
Feelin ya. Particularly about the electoral vote apportionment (wrote about it recently on my own spot ). But also about expanding the House, which would also be a very big positive step. You skipped an important additional reason though: it has been set at its current number of reps for a century, even as the pop. has grown enormously. The point needs to be made again and again until it gets more attention: by that alone we actually have less democracy than we used to. But we can do something about it. And apportionment and expansion are much better options than scrapping the electoral system entirely. That would require a re-write of the constitution, which could only be achieved by a constitutional convention, which would put everything in play among what would certainly be deeply divided delegates. With the way things are now the USA would probably not survive such a re-set. It might dissolve more or less peacefully, but, as you noted, people in states that produce food efficiently with relatively small populations would have little reason to remain in a new union that would sideline them politically.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jsartchr/p/maybe-someday?r=7as1j&utm_medium=ios
I think you have forgotten that when Trump was in office there were no wars. What about the Abraham Accords? We often have short memories.
Well, there were several ongoing wars. It is true that he didn't start any *new* wars, though he was quite vocal then and now about essentially wanting to go to war with Iran.
I think the inadequacies of the Abraham Accords are best exemplified by the current state of the Middle East. Not exactly peaceful cohabitation!