1) Hey @jessewegman !
You have two arguments. One, that the vote in NY should equal the vote in Texas. My point—that is not federalism. The question —since each state votes for prez—is do votes in texas equal votes in texas? Or votes in NY equal votes in NY? They do.
You have two arguments. One, that the vote in NY should equal the vote in Texas. My point—that is not federalism. The question —since each state votes for prez—is do votes in texas equal votes in texas? Or votes in NY equal votes in NY? They do.
https://twitter.com/jessewegman/status/1303722577886617600
2) You argue states should wield power to name electors proportionally. But if winner-takes-all resonates with you nationally, what is wrong with states doing the same? Again, we are a federalist system. States are the voting units. I think people forget this
3) thanks for engaging. It is good to have debate.
4) my point is that if you are going to appeal to federalism, then actually support federalism. Don’t just make up the rules in a way that benefits one side. We are a nation of 50 states—each one of which votes to then “vote” for president. Yes, winner take all—at state level.
5) Let’s just be honest. You, Jesse, view yourself as a citizen of a one-national-government America. I, Kim, view myself primarily as a citizen of my state, one among 50 equals in deciding a presidency. My view is without doubt the Founders’ view of federalism. Even Madison.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
