If you abolish the EC then a national election stops being about states entirely, and becomes about appealing to everybody equally, regardless of what state they're in.
And yet EC defenders still make these sorts of state-based arguments.
This bad EC defense also rests on the idea that states are monolithic blocks, which they clearly are not, but we think of them that way because of ... the EC!
Which apportions all of a state's votes in a monolithic block!
My state of Michigan went for Trump by a razor thin margin, and he got 100% of the electors.
Millions of votes, including mine, counted for nothing.
The same thing happened to Republicans in CA.
The EC is a tool designed to disenfrancise. That's literally what it does.
If you want to know why we have low voter engagement, maybe we look at the fact that most voters live in states where the result is likely known so they know their national vote won't play
Maybe start there
Republicans defend the EC because they want low engagement
AND since it allows for massive swings from tiny manipulations, it’s a key vulnerability, an obvious point of failure for fair and free elections.
If I was someone who wanted to destabilize fair and free elections, I’d really like the electoral college a lot.
There are no good reasons to have the electoral college. There are absolutely none. It’s a relic of a worse bygone era, designed to prop up slave states.
it’s got to go
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Mace’s question seems like a non sequitur, since the topic was immigration. It’s actually part of a unified supremacist frame of domination.
The question invites us into a frame where a woman must be defined. It's very important to refuse the invitation by rejecting the frame.
In this frame, a woman is a *thing* that must have a definition. Once you accept that premise, all that's left to determine are where the boundaries are and who gets to establish and enforce those boundaries. So, from the fascist frame, it is a border security question of sorts.
There's a moment in Steven Soderbergh's film Traffic where the newly freed drug boss says to the drug lawyer who had been working behind his back "do you know the difference between a reason and an excuse? Because I don't."
At this point the lawyer knows he is in deep shit. 🧵
(By the way this thread is part of a longer essay, but if I lead off the thread with a link to an outside source, it usually gets crushed by this site's dork owner and his algorithm shenanigans, so here you go.)
Anyway the lawyer knows he's in deep shit because "do you know the difference between a reason and an excuse" means "I'm not buying your bullshit," and if newly-freed-drug-lords-behind-whose-back-you've-been-working aren't buying your bullshit, then it is murder goon o'clock.
One thing I’ve noticed is, the meanest tables are often popular ones. Sometimes they are the most popular. My observation here would be that bullies know that cultivating friendly relationships is useful and necessary for effective bullying.
Any abuser knows they need accomplices. If dad is getting drunk and beating mom up he’s going to need everyone to keep nice and quiet about it, and if anybody squawks then it’s got to be quickly framed as something bad being done to him rather than the other way around.
If it looks as if the truth of the story is about to get around he’s going to need people to stand up for him in that moment and say things like this: “Nooooo! Not him. I know him. He would never. He has never been anything but nice to me.”
When people decide to leave the place they are and move to a different place, there’s an observable order to it. The order is very important.
So, in movement, there is the moment of arrival at the destination.
But before that moment, there is the actual journey. We began here. We moved until we got there. We put one foot in front of the other. We set sail and kept going until we arrived. The aircraft cut its way across the sky. This is the journey.
There's so much scandal all the time, it can be hard to remember where we are, much less how we got here. But they say it's important remember the lessons of the past, or else we're fated to do...something, I forget what, I forget, I forget.
It's really hard to know where to begin when it comes to where we are. There's only so much sheer volume of blatant corruption and noxious hate that a person can stay aware of even if they're trying. Eventually something pushes out.
It came out this week that NC Republican gubernatorial nominee Mark Robinson has in past years spent his time posting pro-slavery and pro-Nazi comments on porn sites, and other things of that nature, many of which are so bad CNN, who broke the story, declined to print them.
Conservatives keep telling us they're oppressed, and when they define what form the oppression takes, they explain that other kinds of people ... exist.
You know what? Let's do it. Let's actually do it. I think we ought to oppress conservatives.
Other people *should* exist. 🧵
Let's oppress conservatives with a kind and open and generous world that they will hate and fear specifically because it will care for everyone, even them, while it refuses any longer to accommodate the revenge fantasies that they call "self-defense."
At the bottom of it all, it strikes me that conservatives are driven by fear. They're big fraidy-cats, scared specifically of the ongoing danger of good and necessary things, of openness and diversity and peace and plenty.