Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "OH Supreme Court Orders Gerrymandered Republican Maps Thrown in Trash" video.

The electoral college isn't inherently unbalanced. It was the 1929 Act that froze the number of house seats, that has made things increasingly unbalanced. The number of electorals is linked to the number of house seats. Unlike previous temporary bills of its kind, it also failed to set rules for how to divide up voting districts, which is how they sometimes get away with gerrymandering. That bill should be repealed and new rules set up. Technically, it's supposed to be easier to repeal and pass bills, than it is to make constitutional amendments.
18
@andersenparker2297 No. Because it is increasingly unrepresentative, largely due to a 1929 bill, that was most definitely not a pillar.
5
@andersenparker2297 You're incoherent. People in every state get to vote. How is having some votes count for more than others "completely representative"? Do you have reading comprehension problems? I stated to simply repeal the 1929 bill that made the electoral college increasingly unrepresentative.
5
@andersenparker2297 But states don't have equal representation, except for in the undemocratic senate, as is. It's not "completely representative", in the presidential vote, any which way. You're incoherent.
5
@andersenparker2297 A 1929 bill that caused the house and electoral college to become increasingly unrepresentative, benefits Republicans. That's what you're defending.
5
@andersenparker2297 Wyoming gets one electoral vote per 193k people while California gets one electoral vote per 700k people, dimwit. How is that "completely representative" dimwit?
4
@andersenparker2297 You're the hypocrite defending a 1929 bill that benefits you. Constitution: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative" Nothing about it says the number of seats shouldn't be representative of the population, and electorals are based on the number of seats in congress. They made the senate for equal state representation. Based on a 1929 bill, you want both chambers to not be representative of the population, so Republicans have a better chance to win in the house and presidency.
4
@andersenparker2297 The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, is what you're actually defending, not the constitution. You're defending a bill that was put in place so that you could win. You're a hypocrite.
3
@andersenparker2297 The electoral college isn't inherently disproportionate. You are defending the current disproportionate state of affairs, created by a 1929 bill.
3
@andersenparker2297 The senate already has equal state representation, and can override anything that goes through congress. You're defending a 1929 bill because it benefits you. You're a hypocrite.
3
@Alex Green Yeah, adding a step between voters and the results was supposed to do something. Doesn't seem to have worked. But, it wasn't inherently unbalanced, to start. In theory, it should be easier to repeal the bill that made it increasingly imbalanced, and rebalance things, rather than make a constitutional amendment to switch to popular vote. The lazy man's filibuster makes even that harder than it should be, though.
2
@andersenparker2297 Rofl. You're incoherent. If returning to making things more representative would benefit Democrats, then clearly not having things representative must benefit Republicans. You're the one defending a 1929 permanent change that benefited who you want it to. You're a hypocrite.
2
@andersenparker2297 Just how severe are your reading comprehension problems? Again, I haven't said to get rid of the electoral college. I've said to get rid of a 1929 bill, that made the electoral college increasingly unrepresentative. You're the one defending what was a permanent change to the electoral college. And, it is most definitely incoherent to say that getting rid of that permanent change will benefit Democrats, if the imbalance it created doesn't benefit Republicans.
2
@andersenparker2297 Again, each state is equally represented by the undemocratic senate. That's what it was designed for. The house of representatives was designed to be representative of the population. If you aren't arguing for the house to be exactly like the senate, and have an equal representation from each state, and you aren't actually arguing for the house to be "completely representative", then you're arguing for things to be just unbalanced enough for your liking.
2
@andersenparker2297 Who's the opponent? Plenty of people voted Biden because they hated Trump, not because they loved Biden. They can both dislike the job Biden doing, but still vote to keep a nutter out of office. I don't think their opinion of Trump has improved.
2
@andersenparker2297 Right, because the imbalance is just the way you like it.
2
@andersenparker2297 You've proven you're a loon. You learn what a coup is. Learn what gaslighting actually is. And, learn what socialism actually is.
2
@andersenparker2297 Biden didn't put much effort into caring about either of those things, either. You want Biden to slow down the jobs, to slow down demand, until supply catches up? You want him to interfere in corporate price gauging? Or, what? That's kind of anti laissez faire, isn't it? Asking people to find votes is a coup attempt. Asking Pence to not do his job is a coup attempt. Inciting the public, based on absolutely nothing but pure bullshit, is a coup attempt. The Eastman memo outlines a coup attempt. The majority of Republican lawmakers in congress following that plan is a coup attempt. The Oathkeepers planned a more violent coup attempt. The goal of the mob, many of whom claimed to be doing what they thought Trump wanted them to do, was a coup attempt. "The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history." ~ Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
2
@andersenparker2297 Rofl. You're a loon.
2
@andersenparker2297 1929
1
@andersenparker2297 It's just a fact that the imbalance you're defending is actually due to a permanent 1929 change. You should be fine with ditching that, if you actually want to go back to how things were calculated 200 years ago.
1
@andersenparker2297 No clue what the next few years will be like.
1
@andersenparker2297 Exactly what I said. The way it's set up now is from 1929, not 200 years ago.
1
@andersenparker2297 Not sure where I lost you. Many people voted Biden not because they loved him, but because they hated Trump more. Both have shit popularity, which means there are a bunch of people saying they disapprove of both. So an election would come down to who those people dislike more than the other.
1
@andersenparker2297 I didn't say Biden didn't have anyone who likes him. They both have similar popularity ratings. Their approval ratings, combined, don't amount to 100%. There about 20% of the population who dislike both. People also really really hated Trump. They voted for someone they didn't particularly like, to get rid of him. What that 20% does depends on how much more they dislike one, over the other.
1
@andersenparker2297 I did. Biden's approval rate is currently about the same as Dumpty's. That seems to represent the core supporters, for both. How is hating someone who was asking everyone and anyone to support a coup, to overthrow the democratic process to keep him on as an unelected dictator, a "mental complex"? Pretty sure the "mental complex" is supporting that insanity. Yeah, Biden has proved to be a standard right wing corporate Dem, and not a moderate, or at least not one who actually puts up a fight for moderate policies, instead bending the knee to the most conservative of Dems. But, still, why would that make a voter want to vote for someone even further right, who has already proven to be the most divisive president, who criticizes any Republicans voting bipartisan, and who has already proved to be totally incompetent?
1