I see today is "~serious~ conservatives defend the electoral college" day. It's not even that the EC is bad (whatever, sand in the gears) it's that the EC doesn't do anything close to what the founders intended, so the arguments offered just never make any sense.
-
Show this thread
-
The only more annoying "serious conservative" talking point is opposition to the 17th Amendment, which is based more in a childish and reflexive anti-democracy affection than any real theory of what the Senate would be like after repeal.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
At least Senate malapportionment has the justification of raw "I have power, I want to keep it, and you can't take it away from me", which is respectable on some level.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @AlexGodofsky
I find it grotesque. The EC is a pointless institution unless it performs as designed, in which case the EC is a dangerously anti-democratic institution that I am reasonable sure would result in widespread rioting and violent insurrection. The Senate is an even bigger problem.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @AlexGodofsky
the reason we tolerate the Senate is because we're used to it. that's it. there is no other reason. it transparently doesn't serve to make the federal government more rational or effective. it just reduces and concentrates the surface area of corruption. it's a vulnerability.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @AlexGodofsky
also because brute forcing constitutional change would sort of wreck the constitutional compact and its just not worth it for those who would expect first order wins "hahahaha finally proportionate representation over a smoking crater"
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I don't think any faction should expect to get what they want out of a major change to the constitution. I think it should be changed because it's broken.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @Aelkus and
also, the filibuster is a parliamentary procedural rule that managed to find a loophole to exploit in the way congressional debate is conducted. it was prominent, but not a fundamental structure defined by the constitution.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @Aelkus and
the underlying problem being the constitutional structures defined to control the appointment of high stakes positions (particularly supreme court justices) was broken because the Senate is broken.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
what if thats good tho u know
-
-
it's not good. it's dysfunctional. if the system is so bad that deadlock is the best outcome, and you feel bad about the change that made deadlock harder to achieve...I mean, do I really want to continue? this seems self-evident.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
equal representation in the senate only makes girdlock stronger! the filibuster change was tactically idiotic
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.