Categories
cuck irony alert lying liars racism trump tumblr

Trumpgrets: A schadenfreude-tastic catalog of Trump voters regretting their choice

Who could ever have guessed that this smirky bastard would turn out to be a con man?
Who could ever have guessed that this smirky bastard would turn out to be a con man?

Attention Trump haters! If you’ve been starved for schadenfreude lately, there’s a blog for you: Trumpgrets, a small but growing compilation of Tweets from Trump fans now feeling betrayed by Orange Mussolini.

Granted, most of them are mad at him for terrible reasons, but hey, I’ll take what I can get at this point.

dep1 dep2

Speaking of Ann Coulter, the author of In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! and yes that really is the name of the book, is also feeling played, big league!

coult

While it’s always delightful to see Coulter redfaced — with “blood in the face,” as her white supremacist colleagues like to put it — some of the other Tweets are more sad than funny.

soc

Ah, Bob. You know who else is worried, Bob? EVERY OTHER PERSON ON MEDICARE OR MEDICAID. Every American with pre-existing conditions who couldn’t get insurance before Obamacare kicked in. Lots and lots of people who are just barely hanging on.

You and everyone else who voted for Trump made a huge mistake. And we’re all going to be paying for it for years.

H/T — To the WHTM reader who linked to Trumpgrets in the comments here.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

179 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

apparently you folks really don’t care for states’ rights.

http://s1.r29static.com//bin/entry/d51/x/1307174/image.gif

Herbert West
Herbert West
3 years ago

Wow, the well-known scammer and fraud turns out to be a liar?
I would have never expected this. Colour me surprised.

skybison
skybison
3 years ago

Shockingly, it turns out that a pathological liar can’t be trusted.

apparently you folks really don’t care for states’ rights.

A state’s right to what?

Pie
Pie
3 years ago

@weirwood

Oh what a shock. Miggs is a Trumpkin. 329 year old engineers for Trump! Trump eats the best, classiest seagulls!

Ahh, that’s who miggs is. It all comes flooding back now.

Pie
Pie
3 years ago

Anyway, the problem with the president is not how they’re elected, its the fact they have so much power. The office should be broken up. Once it has been thoroghly defanged, the election process matters a whole lot less.

The problem with the Trump presidency isn’t so much the fact that he’s got the number 1 job, but more that he has a really nasty piece of work as his VP, a Tea Party cabinet and a republican-dominated house and senate. It wouldn’t have been nearly such a problem that Hillary lost if the democrats hadn’t had such a poor showing everywhere else, but the ridiculous drawn-out pantomime of the presidential election seems to drown out all other political activities so non-presidential problems just don’t draw the attention they really should.

Laugher at Bigots, Mincing Betaboy
Laugher at Bigots, Mincing Betaboy
3 years ago

Apologies in advance if this joke is really old, but I just had to make it; I just realized that Miggy is the 329-year-old engineer himself!

I know the reason for Miggy’s backward ideology! He was born in 1687, so he would have come of age in the early eighteenth century; thus, he’s nostalgic for the days when nobody paid attention to homosexuals and transgendered persons, when white men ruled the world, and everyone else knew their place! It’s funny though that he’s so fond of “states’ rights”, given that he would have been around 100 when the United States were founded.

Herbert West
Herbert West
3 years ago

@Miggy
Considering that smaller states already have a relative advantage in congress (especially the senate), giving them this advantage everywhere is probably a dumb idea.
Especially since the presidential vote has essentially become a popular vote anyway.
And especially since most states use a horrible “winner takes all” approach, which makes a huge amount of votes in those states utterly worthless and creates this unbearable swing-state phenomenon.
You live in a blue state and generally support republicans?
You’re vote is worthless.
You live in a red state and support democrats?
You’re vote is worthless.
This is not fucking mob rule, mob rule means that a majority, however slight, has acquired the power to decide EVERYTHING (including killing a minority, because most support it) rules be damned, not just electing a leader for the next few years. If that was mob rule, all elections not done by an oligarchic elite would be mob rule, including representatives, senators, mayors and so on.

Simpler solution for supporters of the EC:
let the House elect the president, why even play this game of pretend?
It would be fairer, too, since there’s no “winner takes all” on state level. This also lowers the impact of larger states (since the votes will be split between the canditates).
It makes gerrymandering worse, but this should be banned anyway.

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
3 years ago

@Trollbert

If the electoral college was abolished it wouldn’t matter where people move to. It’s one person one vote. Because, you know, democracy.

Belladonna "Toxic Hag"
Belladonna "Toxic Hag"
3 years ago

@Miggy
I actually do care about states’ rights. I have very libertarian tendencies (if only I didn’t generally find the Libertarian party so repulsive).

But as Falconer pointed out, that is what our system of checks and balances is for. States’ rights are represented in the legislative branch. Other than veto power, the power of the executive branch is all supposed to be about federal government appointments and foreign treaty. The president should represent all of our citizens in a democratic way. So should the judicial. I believe states rights should be balanced by citizens’ rights.

As a liberal-leaning independent in a completely red state (the last year my state went blue was the year I was born), I don’t feel at all represented by my state government. There are no “checks and balances” for me when the states are also given an unequal amount of power in choosing the president.

Two reasons I’m against the EC that I think haven’t been mentioned yet:

1. We moan about low voter turnout. I think a lot of this is due to the fact that the EC (and all electors go to one party in a state) completely disenfranchises voters. I’d be fascinated to see what happened to voter turnout if the presidential election was by popular vote.

2. We moan about our two-party system. I think the only remote chance a third party ever has of becoming relevant would be if we did away with the EC.

Anyway, I’m not sure why I’m bothering to try to speak with someone who has temper tantrums over menstruation, but whatever. You said you voted third party. Consider for a minute whether a third party might gain leverage in a system where suddenly all voters felt empowered, and also empowered to work together with voters in other states.

Belladonna "Toxic Hag"
Belladonna "Toxic Hag"
3 years ago

@Herbert West

It makes gerrymandering worse, but this should be banned anyway.

Gerrymandering shouldn’t be banned, it should be regulated and assigned to an independent board, whose duty is to gerrymander in a way that is as representational as possible. And they should be required to make everything they do public so it can be reviewed and questioned by all interested parties.

Pie
Pie
3 years ago

@belladonna

Gerrymandering shouldn’t be banned, it should be regulated and assigned to an independent board, whose duty is to gerrymander in a way that is as representational as possible

Gerrymandering is defined as making weirdly shaped districts for some political advantage. Merely drawing up districts that cover sensible administrative or geographical areas or regions of roughly equal population isn’t gerrymandering.

Belladonna "Toxic Hag"
Belladonna "Toxic Hag"
3 years ago

@Pie

Gerrymandering is defined as making weirdly shaped districts for some political advantage. Merely drawing up districts that cover sensible administrative or geographical areas or regions of roughly equal population isn’t gerrymandering.

Fair enough, if I got the strict definition of gerrymandering wrong, but I’m not just talking about “sensible administrative or geographical areas.” And I’m especially not just talking about population. I’m talking about specifically using the techniques of gerrymandering to make districts more representational rather than politically advantageous to one side. As suggested toward the end of this video:

TreePerson
TreePerson
3 years ago

The EC is part of why we have a two party system to begin with,
getting rid of it would make third parties more viable (not that I cared for either third party option this year).

Belladonna "Toxic Hag"
Belladonna "Toxic Hag"
3 years ago

@TreePerson
Agreed. I didn’t like the other options, either. But it’s sometimes nice to contemplate a system where the possibility of a third, fourth, or even fifth party could become viable. In my opinion, a good deal of the corruption in our system is currently due to the power that the two parties have.

NicolaLuna - epic slut
NicolaLuna - epic slut
3 years ago

Anyway, I’m not sure why I’m bothering to try to speak with someone who has temper tantrums over menstruation, but whatever.

Ooh I must have missed this while I was away. Fill me in?

Conan the Librarian
3 years ago

“What the hell happened?” Well, you voted for a con man who’d say anything to seal the deal. What also happened is that plenty of people warned you of this but you saw them as the enemy, so you got the wool pulled over your eyes. How does it feel?

Abars01
Abars01
3 years ago

Man; and here I thought I was going to have to wait a few a years, until after Trump had failed to build the wall, for an alt-righter to declare that Trump was a cuck all along!

Conan the Librarian
3 years ago

@Miggy

1) Actually, I don’t “believe” in “state’s rights”. I know that under the U.S. system, state governments have autonomous power, largely independent of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, but still subject to judicial oversight by the federal judiciary. The Electoral College (EC) has zero to do with that.

2) As far as ensuring that each state, however small, gets represented, we have this thing called the Senate. Ever heard of it?

3) The EC is problematic if you regard the outcome of a Presidential election legitimate insofar as it is the expression of the will of the people, rather than an accident arising from how votes were distributed geographically in such a way that a candidate with fewer votes eked out a series of narrow statewide wins and thus won the Presidency. Since under the EC a candidate that wins a state by a handful of votes nonetheless gets 100% of that state’s EC votes (with a couple of minor exceptions), the result is a massive distortion of the vote as an expression of the popular will.

4) And if you say #3 is not a problem, remember what Republican senators said when they refused to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a hearing. “The people should have a say”, they said. Note, they said “the people”, as in a singular entity – not a confederation of “peoples”, state by state. By that standard, the people had their say. A plurality chose Clinton. Yet Trump is the one who will get to nominate the next Supreme Court justice. How is that right?

5) The distinction between a “democratic mandate”- which, again, these Republican senators appealed to, and which American politicians tend to tell us their power is based on, and “mob rule”, which you insinuate is the alternative to the EC, is something you are going to have to elaborate on a great deal if your allusion to “mob rule” is going to mean anything other than “I don’t like democracy”.

Blue wave
Blue wave
3 years ago

Besides the obvious (EC doesn’t favor democrats), why do you think it needs to go? US is a federal system, the interests of citizens living in more populous states have no reason to overpower the interests of citizens living in less populous states. People living in Montana don’t have the same geographical interests as people living in California.

Asymetric mobilization. There were 3 scenarios for the outcome of the 2016 election:

1. Hillary Clinton runs Barack Obama’s 2012 map minus Iowa and Ohio

2. The Midwest turns red and Donald Trump wins all the battleground states minus Nevada and New Hampshire , ending with a rather unimpressive electoral college victory compared to previous winners

3. The New South turns blue and Hillary Clinton wins in an electoral college landslide

The second scenario is what came to pass, however, if you look at the data in Nevada, where Democrats run the table, in Texas, Arizona and Georgia where Democrats made huge gains and flipped urban counties, the New South is still turning blue. Now, how many conservatives will still support the E.C. on the night California,New York, Texas and Florida all get called for a Democrat?
If it weren’t for a few thousand votes in the Midwest, the narrative would be about Republicans taking the South West for granted and the need for the Republican party to listen to urban voters.

ramen
ramen
3 years ago

AFAIK “mob rule” is what European royalty called democracy back in the day. Now that we’re fixing to install a white nationalist authoritarian, I’ve lost what little patience I had with people who use “mob rule” as an abstract criticism of anything.

C.S.Strowbridge
C.S.Strowbridge
3 years ago

All I’ve learned from this is that you people think that Trump is every right-wing person’s king or some shit, and apparently you folks really don’t care for states’ rights.

Of course we don’t care about “states’ rights”.
We don’t care, because “states’ rights” is code for removing federal protections.

When states started giving rights to LGBT people, right-wingers wanted the federal government to step in and crush those rights.

kupo
kupo
3 years ago

@NicolaLuna
Check out the other thread. He’s having quite the meltdown about menstruation with a Ryan Williams level understanding of what a tampon tax is (which he insisted after we explained it he already totally understood totally understands how it works).

Pie
Pie
3 years ago

@TreePerson

The EC is part of why we have a two party system to begin with,
getting rid of it would make third parties more viable (not that I cared for either third party option this year).

Is it an important part, though? It makes having a non-democrat, non-republican president a tricky proposition in the current climate, but the EC don’t have any part in electing folks to the senate or the house and neither of those places are exactly overflowing with third party congresscritters. If things had worked out a little differently, Trump might have ended up being an independent president, but it would be in name only. He’d still have to get the republican majority on side for anything important changes.

If there were meaningful opposition to the current big two, then the EC might be more of an issue, but there really isn’t.

rugbyyogi
rugbyyogi
3 years ago

I’m not currently seeing a lot of Trumpgret amongst my red-state high school Facebook friends. They’re still telling me to STFU and ‘give him a chance’.

I did sort of give him a chance in that I decided to not say anything until he did something really horrible. And then he went and appointed Bannon as chief of strategy. So my chance didn’t last very long.

I’m not sure what it would take to make most Trump voters regret their vote. They live in a bubble where they don’t see the hate crimes being committed in his name and/or don’t attribute it to him and/or think it’s not such a bad thing for those lefties/minorities/’deviants’ to be intimidated.

Many of them really can’t see that Trump is an embarrassment and a danger and I’m not sure what would wake them up.

ramen
ramen
3 years ago

Scapegoating is a central part of the Pence Plan. Killing Obamacare will cause bad things to happen, but the scapegoats are lined up already, starting with Obama himself. “He screwed things up so badly we had no choice but to gut the New Deal!”

The GOP base will put up with a lot, as long as they get their scapegoats. And the GOP has scapegoats from here to the moon.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

Two separate issues have popped up that I’d like to comment on:

The EC: Obviously antiquated, over-represents rural states, etc. IMO, the real problem with the EC, however, isn’t that it’s an indirect form of democracy, or even the ‘winner take all’ system (although I agree that the second makes a third-party president almost impossible). It’s the fact that EC votes are based on congressional representation (representatives + senators) rather than state population.

For example, the day after the election, I crunched out the numbers for population vs electoral college votes for the state of Illinois (where I just moved from), vs the entire intermountain west (ID, NV, AZ, UT, CO, WY, and NM). Illinois has 58% of the population of those seven states, but only has 43% as many electoral votes. So, basically, urban populations are somewhat gerrymandered to begin with (which is why no democratic president ever wins the EC vote without also winning the popular vote). The EC would be much more democratic if votes were based on number of representatives each state has, rather than congressional votes total.

States rights: In a sense, I sympathize with this. No one in the US congress can truly represent their constituencies, because they each have a constituency numbering in the thousands (at least), so they’ve never actually met most of their constituents. This is much less of a problem on the state level (for example, I was actually taught high-school government by my state assemblyman, who was a public school teacher in his off years*). Also, for those who don’t like either party and think the US would have a much better government with a viable third party, I might point out that various third parties have much greater representation at the state level than the national, so there’s that, too. I don’t talk about it a lot, because I know ‘states rights’ is code for racism and misogyny (and I hate to feel like the confederates were right about anything at all), but there is a point there. It’s just a shame that it’s been buried in other right-wing bullsh*t.

*The Nevada state legislature meets every other year, so the legislators all have regular jobs in the off years.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

States rights is only ever invoked when people want the “right” to oppress others in their state. The right wing’s faux concern for states rights goes out the window when a more liberal passes a bill they don’t like. Such as strict gun laws, single payer healthcare or emissions laws on cars that are stronger than the federal standard.

joekster (Bearded Beta)
joekster (Bearded Beta)
3 years ago

@Kat: Trumps appeal is quite simple: fear sells better than hope. Always has, always will.

@WWTH: Agree, which is why I only speak in support of states rights among people who already know what else I believe in*. I do think individual states can better enact laws for their own populations (including tighter gun control and more funding for Medicaid), but I don’t want to come across as supporting anything right wing, so I generally don’t talk about it.

*I think I’ve posted enough here to make it clear that whatever flaws I have, I’m all for gender/racial/GLBTQA equality, socialized medicine, strict gun control, etc. At least, I hope so.

Viscaria
Viscaria
3 years ago

I know I’m a damn foreigner and all, but I really couldn’t care less about “state’s rights.” I care about people’s rights. I recognize it’s probably more complicated than it seems from an outsider’s perspective.

Re the OP

some of the other Tweets are more sad than funny.

Yeah. I couldn’t enjoy the schadenfreude as much as I wanted to after encountering Tweets like the Jewish Trump voter who was upset with Steve Bannon’s appointment to a made-up position. Like, you’re an ignorant assface for voting for him, but you don’t deserve the onslaught of anti-semitism that’s coming your way.

Hu's On First
Hu's On First
3 years ago

Arizona, Texas and Georgia are all turning blue though; Hillary did much better in each one than Obama did in ’12. All three of them should be in play in 2020, which will give the Democratic candidate a much better chance. The problem with 2016 is that it was both too late (in the Midwest, which is turning red) and too early (in the aforementioned South/Western States).

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
3 years ago

@Viscaria

I recognize it’s probably more complicated than it seems from an outsider’s perspective

‘States’ Rights’ just means ‘federalism in service of oppression’. I’m a pretty staunch federalist. Devolution of powers is a good thing, and, all else being equal, lower levels of government are better suited to craft targeted policy than DC. Unfortunately, all else isn’t equal. Yeah, it makes no sense for the federal gov to decide trash day for my street or whatevs. At the same time, it makes even less sense for an individual state to decide who is or isn’t allowed to be treated with basic human decency. ‘States’ Rights’ is basically bigots equivocating on the rights of marginalized groups

Bina
3 years ago

apparently you folks really don’t care for states’ rights.

This from someone who was ranting about the evils of “statism” on another thread. What could be more statist than states, not voters, determining the outcome of an election? And what could be less free and democratic?

Miggy, how do you keep your idiot ideology straight? Oh right, you don’t…you just go with whatever’s convenient to your ever-changing mercurial masculine moods.

Internal logic: get you some.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
3 years ago

Gotlib is dead.

I guess that won’t mean anything to non-french people, but he was a french comicbook legend. His style was somewhat akin to Mad Magazine in that he did a lot of absurd humor, and a lot of trash or sexual humor. Sometime both. He was close to the guys from Charlie Hebdo, but he was more absurd and less political, and overall he was also less directly provoking, which is usually better to make people thing. Turn out that saying to people they are stupid is less though-provoking than showing a goofy priest who litteraly follow his religion. Gotlib also deeply loved his characters instead of depicting them as scums, like Charlie Hebdo often do.

French comics are less and less provocative and trash. It’s hard to say if it’s truly a bad thing given that a lot of trash or provocative stuff is just badly done, but it make me sad (see also : Charlie Hebdo).

My prefered quote of him is “Humor is something too important to be left to the care of funny guys”.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
3 years ago

Gotlib, noooo :C

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
3 years ago

Ah :-((((((
I have a Rubrique-à-Brac album stashed away somewhere, that I bought back when I was living in France (though I admit I prefer F’Murr). French bd culture is outrageously ingenious.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
3 years ago

I actually prefer F’murr too. Legend say that while he was published in Pilote, there were several letters each weeks questioning F’murr sanity. But that don’t make Gotlib any less important to me.

Given the xenophobic contest everywhere, I seriously consider buying all Super Dupont albums. Maybe I could try to show them to FN militant library, just to see if they are able to catch that it’s satiric.

Ledasmom
Ledasmom
3 years ago

In addition to producing representative districts, gerrymandering should be themed. This time dragon-shaped districts, next time districts shaped like the states they’re in, next time after that famous landmarks. Best district gets an extra one-sixteenth of an electoral vote, which should eliminate ties forevermore.

Stephen Lawt
Stephen Lawt
3 years ago

For some reason, I don’t feel any Schadenfreude towards people who voted Trump. I mean yeah they’re the reason we have Trump and his administration for the next four years, but I just can’t. I don’t why

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
3 years ago

comment image

A drawing by Gotlieb, who for once don’t require translation.

Also, why WHTM mocking Trump is so important.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
3 years ago

try two :comment image

If the link still isn’t here, the blog system will have beaten me.

TreePerson
TreePerson
3 years ago

@Pie
Yeah the green party just pops its head up to run a presidential candidate then hibernates for another 4 years.

But in the current system a lot of people (Like Sanders) run as part of the two main parties even if they are otherwise independent,
and the over whelming majority of voters vote for the same party as the presidential pick all the way down the ballot.

LindsayIrene
3 years ago

A state’s right to what?

To party, of course. They had to fight for that.

comment image

numerobis
numerobis
3 years ago

Yeah the green party just pops its head up to run a presidential candidate then hibernates for another 4 years.

I’ve voted green at the US house level (ages ago), and a friend ran at the county level on the Green Party banner; she and a colleague each got 20+% of the vote.

The media rarely reports on anything below the US senate, and even more rarely acknowledges there’s more than two parties, so you have to be paying close attention to notice.

Ben
Ben
3 years ago

Yeah the green party just pops its head up to run a presidential candidate then hibernates for another 4 years

This is simply untrue. At the municipal level, in many states, Green candidates run both in opposition to and in place of Democrats in every election. Several of them won this year in the city where I live, which is blue but not so blue that a progressive candidate winning is a foregone conclusion.

The problem, as many people have said, is that they’re rare at the state level and almost unheard of at the national level, because those races are exponentially more expensive, beyond the means of the vast majority of individuals, and the Green Party can’t get access to the federal support infrastructure for campaign funding without passing that arbitrary 15% threshold for votes in the presidential election. It’s transparently a rigged system and I have trouble begrudging the Green Party whatever tactics it chooses to militate against that.

TreePerson
TreePerson
3 years ago

@numerobis + Ben

Yeah I should have clarified that I meant at the national level at the senate and such,
and yeah a part of that is just the way the system is set up.

Belladonna "Toxic Hag"
Belladonna "Toxic Hag"
3 years ago

@Pie

Is it an important part, though? It makes having a non-democrat, non-republican president a tricky proposition in the current climate, but the EC don’t have any part in electing folks to the senate or the house and neither of those places are exactly overflowing with third party congresscritters.

I have a hypothesis (although that’s all it is) about this. The EC disenfranchises massive numbers of voters. By massive:

Current vote count for Hillary Clinton: 65, 316, 724
Current vote count for all third parties: 7, 612, 988

Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

And that’s only among voters. It doesn’t count all the people who feel so disenfranchised that they don’t even bother to show up. IIRC, almost 49% of registered voters didn’t vote in 2016. And how many people in addition to that just aren’t registered at all? I’m also not breaking it down by state. The voters who are disenfranchised in blue states are Republicans, rather than the ones who voted for Hillary. But for this election, where Hillary’s current popular vote lead is 2,597,156, the voters feeling the most disenfranchised are rightfully the ones whose candidate won but didn’t win.

I know it’s counterintuitive that more people vote in presidential elections (where their vote barely counts) than vote in downticket races where their vote can matter (except where it’s gerrymandered to oblivion). But I think the disenfranchisement may have a trickle-down effect. That is, the realization that you really don’t have much of a say in voting in a president might make you feel more apathetic about all elections.

Also, since there’s virtually no chance a third-party candidate will ever become president (and I don’t agree that Trump could have won as an independent—if he’d run as an independent, the voter split between the GoP candidate and Trump would have ensured a Clinton win), I believe that also has a trickle-down effect to other federal offices.

In the current political environment, it’s dangerous to elect a third-party candidate to the house or senate. It potentially disempowers your state in the legislature to have someone who isn’t in one of the two parties and would never be in the same party as the president. I think the fact that there are any third party congresspeople in this environment is actually a testament to the fact that there may be a great deal more support for third parties being buried under the EC and the winner take all approach to the EC that 48 states take.

So it’s my hypothesis that abolishing the EC could lead to seeing some very interesting things happen to our political party climate. Anyway, I could be completely wrong. My hypothesis (like many hypotheses) is only based on completely anecdotal evidence. I believe that the last time I voted before 2016 was in 1996. (I think I may have voted in 2008, but I can’t remember for sure.) And sure, it’s stupid of me not to just get more involved at a local level, but largely, it’s just led to a feeling of helplessness about all politics in general. So I typically only pay attention to the issues that matter the most to me, like women’s reproductive and sexual freedom and civil liberties, and then feel enormously frustrated that to support the right side in those issues, I have to support people who’d make it so that if I lived in one of “their” states, I’d want to wear a bag over my head to go to McDonald’s and would have to spend more to buy two 16-ounce cups of unsweetened iced tea if I were really thirsty. (But I’ll avoid my soapbox on the “obesity epidemic” here.) So far, there’s not a third party that I don’t find a whole lot more sickening than the Democrats, but if I really felt like my vote might matter, I would absolutely be on the lookout for one. I’d probably never find one since I’m a rather weird mix of (lower-case) libertarian socialist, but I’d still be looking.

You might be right that it wouldn’t be a terribly significant change. I definitely think that instant-runoff voting would have a much greater impact on the viability of third parties than abolishing the EC.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

@Ohlmann

comment image

(That’s pretty good.)

Snowberry
Snowberry
3 years ago

What we need is to convince some very rich and powerful people to back the Libertarian party. They’ll take more votes from the Republicans than Democrats, creating a three-way split which strongly favors the Democrats. Only then could we reasonably throw some support to the Greens.

I mean, if you want to exploit lesser-evilism to your long-term advantage, that is. The problem with lesser-evilism is that it normally favors the short-term at the cost of the long-term, so it might be nice to turn that on its head for once.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
3 years ago

The biggest and most productive change that could be made to the US electoral system is to adopt an automatic run-off rather than the plurality voting system we have today. Every voting system is problematic, but plurality systems have more problems than others. Automatic run-off would make third party candidates viable, because voting for one wouldn’t mean wasting a vote. Right now, you vote Green for President and you might as well have stayed home. With an automatic run-off, you could vote Green, and if Green loses your vote goes automatically to your second choice. Protests votes are no longer a problem, and spoiler candidates are no longer a problem. Third parties would become viable simply because the perception that voting for them is a wasted vote would no longer be a thing.

Weird (bite me, Bitefart!!) Eddie
Weird (bite me, Bitefart!!) Eddie
3 years ago

My brain is screaming at me… do you have any IDEA how distracting that can be?? My brain is screaming;

YOU KNEW I WAS A SNAKE WHEN YOU BROUGHT ME INTO YOUR HOME!!!!

schadenfreude, indeed