That's up to Donald to send his supporters marching to the homes of those 220 / 53 Republicans to make sure they stay in line and support his every whim. Democrats should focus as much as possible on lending strength to their state and local governmental institutions over the next 2 years. Let MAGA embrace and act on its worst impulses.
Ah, but with his "Spanky and Our Gang" nominations there are already signs of trouble spoiling the MAGA forest.
You have wildly misunderstood what "land doesn't vote" is even talking about.
People bring this up a lot:
Winning "fair and square" hasn't been the lament of the non-trumpers.
Those maps showing all counties in the U.S. and how they voted are a somewhat good argument for the need for the EC. We can all see that the majority of the red counties in the middle of the country make up a significantly higher area of the U.S. than the blue counties. It does not matter the population density of the middle of the country. So what if there are large expanses of land where people dont live? There are still people living in those states. The majority of our nation's population lives on the two coasts, and the overwhelming percentage of democrat voters live in those coastal areas. If we only relied on the popular vote, and the dems in the coastal areas always won because the election always went their way by just a couple million votes, then that would leave all those people in that huge area of the country without representation. It's not their fault that they live in sparsely populated areas. If rural people didn't matter and didn't need their particular needs to be met, why dont we just move them all west and east? We dont need Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, the Dakotas, Texas, OK, Kansas, etc, right? Everyone would have to give up beef but that's OK......
Thank you for participating. And that was an interesting take, but I don't think that's what posters who brought up land doesn't vote were talking about. The land doesn't vote stuff was about how the electoral college was unfair, and gave sparsely populated republican states with large areas of land where no one lived electoral votes that gave them an advantage in the election. The detractors of the EC are of the opinion that it doesn't matter that most of the population of the U.S. is concentrated on the two coasts and is mostly democratic. They figure that if we did away with the EC, and the dems on the two coasts always win, then that would be good, and screw the rednecks in the vast middle of the country.
You're wrong, sorry.
Not really, no.
No they're not, because the electoral college is not decided at a county level. People use the maps broken down by county because they want to artificially inflate the apparent amount of red in the nation.
Right, and area, aka land, does not vote.
Again, people in all states vote for all parties. This dichotomy of "coast = democrat, interior = republican" is outright false.
Sure, but my point was using maps like that to misrepresent the amount of the country's support for a particular candidate. Land mass and population are not the same thing. So for example:
No, the popular vote would not always mean that as we just witnessed in the 2024 election. There are certainly arguments for fair representation in relation to the EC, but there's also the issue of minority rule through it as well, which we've also had on instances where the presidents who didn't win the popular vote won via the EC,
Not entirely sure what you're asking.
Winning by a plurality (short of a majority) of the electorate was true for many (other) elected federal officials, but since Trump is icky the system should be changed.
Neither did Trump
No he didn't. TDS is boring.
