If you read our @nytopinion endorsement of Joe Biden last week, you may have noticed the absence of one word: Trump.

That's because we gave him a section all to himself. It's still not enough to cover the damage he's done, but it's a start.

nytimes.com/interactive/20…
@nytopinion After you read the lead editorial, please check out the separate signed pieces:

On his epic, unparalleled corruption and grift, by @mcottle:

nytimes.com/2020/10/16/opi…
@nytopinion @mcottle On his abject failure to handle the biggest health crisis in a century, by @JInterlandi:

nytimes.com/2020/10/16/opi…
@nytopinion @mcottle @JInterlandi On his violent rhetoric and its deadly consequences, by @jessewegman (me!):

nytimes.com/2020/10/16/opi…
@nytopinion @mcottle @JInterlandi On his phony concern for working-class Americans, by @fstockman:

nytimes.com/2020/10/16/opi…
@nytopinion @mcottle @JInterlandi @fstockman And on his utter ineptness on the world stage, by Serge Schmemann:

nytimes.com/2020/10/16/opi…
@nytopinion @mcottle @JInterlandi @fstockman Finally, see our powerful photo essay with captions that covers the damage the Trump administration has wrought on women's rights, immigration, black lives, the climate, and the economy:

nytimes.com/interactive/20…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jesse Wegman

Jesse Wegman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jessewegman

7 Oct
Here's a short video I did with the great folks in the @nytopinion video department.

Watch it for a quick debunking of some of the most common and persistent myths about the Electoral College. But there's more!
@nytopinion Here's a good way to think about it: The US *already has* a popular vote for president. In all 50 states and DC, the people themselves vote. What keeps that vote from being counted as such is NOT the Electoral College the framers designed, it's the way states have manipulated it.
@nytopinion State-based winner-take-all laws are the biggest single source of distortion in translating our popular will to election outcomes. They erase tens of millions of Americans' votes every 4 years, Republicans and Democrats, in small states and large.
Read 9 tweets
29 Sep
50 years ago today, at almost this precise moment, the last serious effort to abolish the Electoral College by constitutional amendment and replace it with a national popular vote died on the floor of the Senate. 1/
A year earlier, the amendment had passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly, by a vote of 339-70 -- well over the 2/3s threshhold. 2/
More than 80 percent of Americans supported the change to a popular vote, according to Gallup.

Democrats, Republicans, city dwellers, rural people. The Chamber of Commerce. The League of Women Voters. Richard goddamned Nixon! 3/
Read 20 tweets
29 Sep
Not picking on @jonathanchait here, b/c I see this repeated all over, but it makes no sense to argue that state legislatures' power to bypass voters & appoint presidential electors is a "massive loophole": That's literally the Electoral College's design!

nymag.com/intelligencer/…
@jonathanchait The Constitution says how many electors each state gets, and then it says the choosing and awarding of those electors is entirely up to the state legislatures. The Constitution plays no role in that part.
@jonathanchait State legislatures regularly used to award electors on their own, with no public input. They could do it again tomorrow.

As a voter, you have no constitutional right to play any role in the choosing of the president. Whatever right you have is by the grace of your state.
Read 8 tweets
23 Sep
Let's be clear about what's being discussed here. It's a serious threat, but it's also not so easy to accomplish.

First: Yes, it's true -- state legislatures may award electoral votes themselves, with no input from voters. Welcome to the Electoral College!
However, as a general rule, state laws regarding the awarding of electors must be in place *before* election day. In other words, if a state picks its electors by popular vote, the legislature can't just decide to change the game post-election if they don't like the results.
BUT! There is always a but.

Title 3, Sec 2 of the US Code says that if a state has "failed to make a choice" on Election Day, then lawmakers *can* take back the power to award electors as they please.

So: What does "failed to make a choice" mean?

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/2
Read 7 tweets
21 Sep
I'm getting really tired of the line that Democrats "started it" with Bork. These arguments rarely note that: Bork was an extremist with a terrible history; that he would replace a swing justice; and that he STILL got a vote (in which multiple Republicans voted against him).
If the Senate has the power of advice and consent (as Republicans gladly reminded us all in 2016), then what was wrong with pushing back on an extreme nominee, while still giving him a vote?
And if it was really Bork that "started things," why didn't the Democrats' blocking of Carswell and Haynesworth (also on grounds of retrograde views on race) trigger the same outrage? This is a serious question for @KevinMKruse or other historians of the 20th century.
Read 7 tweets
21 Sep
I'm throwing in some quotes from the founding fathers on the absurdity of the Senate ... see next.
“It has been said that Congress is a representative of states, not of individuals. It is strange that annexing the name of ‘State’ to ten thousand men, should give them an equal right with forty thousand. This must be the effect of magic, not reason.”

--James Wilson
"As States are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most: the rights of the people composing them, or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition? Nothing could be more preposterous or absurd than to sacrifice the former to the latter"

--Hamilton
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!