The next 4 years are going to be fucking dark, aren't they?
Four? Shit, we'll be lucky if it's only four.
i get the feeling elections don't matter any more either.
They've already proven that they have no qualms about fraud when it comes to pushing their agenda, and I would almost guarantee you that in the next election, if the GOP candidate wins the popular vote by a landslide, we'll see them suddenly find the irregularities in the process they claim weren't here this time around. Either that or they'll have already gone full retard and abolished the Electoral College, ensuring that the tyranny of the majority will be in full swing as the country sinks further into third-world status. Either way, they won't let up on their attack on our personal freedoms until they've established their own authoritarian state.
Prior to the last four years I would have said, "Fuck it, I'm moving to Canada", but they're just as woke, if not more so, up there. Anyone have any suggestions on a non-woke safe haven? :)
Oh, you wouldn't like our first-past-the-post system of voting, anyway. :P
(No, I don't understand your electoral college, and the idea of someone standing between me and my vote sounds creepy. I can't stand anyone who wants to change things to give "minority" parties status, though, because all our "minority" parties are either literal jokes, or batshit crazy on both ends of the spectrum, from full-blown communists to people still stuck on hating French Catholics, to weirdoes with their yogic flyers, you might as well let a rhinoceros run for office.)
Oh, you wouldn't like our first-past-the-post system of voting, anyway. :P
In a two-party system (which, to be honest, is effectively what we have - the other parties get bent over the barrel every time they try to put a candidate into the mix) FPTP might not be so bad, but we'd still get screwed by the liberal sinkholes on both coasts.
No, I don't understand your electoral college, and the idea of someone standing between me and my vote sounds creepy.
To be fair, most Americans don't get it, either. In its purest form it helps prevent some of the tyranny of majority by limiting the amount of votes for a given candidate from each state, as we saw in 2016. The state only gets a number of votes equal to the total number of congress-critters they have in the house & senate (so a minimum of 3 per state), and those votes are cast based on who won the popular vote in the state.
Yeah, it's convoluted as fuck, but in a perfect situation it keeps overpopulated liberal hellholes like California from running rampant over the election. The downside to it is that as goes the state, so go ALL the votes, so it effectively disenfranchises the votes of those people who didn't vote the same as the majority in the state - case in point, Illinois. If you look at a voting map of IL there is a massive blue blotch up around Chicago, a couple more blue blotches where some major cities down-state exist, and the entire rest of the state is red. But because Chicago and the collar counties are such a massive population sink, their vote carries the state's 20 electoral votes into liberal territory every damn time.
Personally, I would prefer that the electoral votes be broken down into a district system. If a district voted majority red, then the vote goes to the red team, and vice versa. That way there would be less of a barrier between the voter and their preferred candidate. It still wouldn't be perfect, but it'd be better than the shit-show we have going on now.
I have always advocated for the idea of states splitting their electoral votes so that the rural people have a fucking voice in our elections. We need to fix the holes in our current system before switching to a completely different system or throwing it out entirely, like the Dems want to do because it benefits their side.
The next 4 years are going to be fucking dark, aren't they?
Hopefully people learn something, but i get the feeling elections don't matter any more either.
Thank you nevertrumpers, truly, they'll just commit election fraud this once.
Four? Shit, we'll be lucky if it's only four.
They've already proven that they have no qualms about fraud when it comes to pushing their agenda, and I would almost guarantee you that in the next election, if the GOP candidate wins the popular vote by a landslide, we'll see them suddenly find the irregularities in the process they claim weren't here this time around. Either that or they'll have already gone full retard and abolished the Electoral College, ensuring that the tyranny of the majority will be in full swing as the country sinks further into third-world status. Either way, they won't let up on their attack on our personal freedoms until they've established their own authoritarian state.
Prior to the last four years I would have said, "Fuck it, I'm moving to Canada", but they're just as woke, if not more so, up there. Anyone have any suggestions on a non-woke safe haven? :)
Oh, you wouldn't like our first-past-the-post system of voting, anyway. :P
(No, I don't understand your electoral college, and the idea of someone standing between me and my vote sounds creepy. I can't stand anyone who wants to change things to give "minority" parties status, though, because all our "minority" parties are either literal jokes, or batshit crazy on both ends of the spectrum, from full-blown communists to people still stuck on hating French Catholics, to weirdoes with their yogic flyers, you might as well let a rhinoceros run for office.)
In a two-party system (which, to be honest, is effectively what we have - the other parties get bent over the barrel every time they try to put a candidate into the mix) FPTP might not be so bad, but we'd still get screwed by the liberal sinkholes on both coasts.
To be fair, most Americans don't get it, either. In its purest form it helps prevent some of the tyranny of majority by limiting the amount of votes for a given candidate from each state, as we saw in 2016. The state only gets a number of votes equal to the total number of congress-critters they have in the house & senate (so a minimum of 3 per state), and those votes are cast based on who won the popular vote in the state.
Yeah, it's convoluted as fuck, but in a perfect situation it keeps overpopulated liberal hellholes like California from running rampant over the election. The downside to it is that as goes the state, so go ALL the votes, so it effectively disenfranchises the votes of those people who didn't vote the same as the majority in the state - case in point, Illinois. If you look at a voting map of IL there is a massive blue blotch up around Chicago, a couple more blue blotches where some major cities down-state exist, and the entire rest of the state is red. But because Chicago and the collar counties are such a massive population sink, their vote carries the state's 20 electoral votes into liberal territory every damn time.
Personally, I would prefer that the electoral votes be broken down into a district system. If a district voted majority red, then the vote goes to the red team, and vice versa. That way there would be less of a barrier between the voter and their preferred candidate. It still wouldn't be perfect, but it'd be better than the shit-show we have going on now.
I have always advocated for the idea of states splitting their electoral votes so that the rural people have a fucking voice in our elections. We need to fix the holes in our current system before switching to a completely different system or throwing it out entirely, like the Dems want to do because it benefits their side.