The State of the Republican Party Post-2017

[San Lumen]

You should do it better then


Direct rule from NYC over the Midwest when tbh

The point had nothing to do with voter fraud, and everything to do with people casting bad votes. People cast bad votes, but we still extend the right to vote to them. Why?

Why are they bad votes because they don't vote the way you like? Heres an idea for everyone bad mouthing Chicago and other urban areas. Why don't we make urban and suburban votes count for 3/5ths of vote of rural county that way your side would always win.

[Zakuvia]

The point had nothing to do with voter fraud, and everything to do with people casting bad votes. People cast bad votes, but we still extend the right to vote to them. Why?

Why are they bad votes because they don't vote the way you like? Heres an idea for everyone bad mouthing Chicago and other urban areas. Why don't we make urban and suburban votes count for 3/5ths of vote of rural county that way your side would always win.

They just call that the Electoral College. Because disenfranchisement based on geography is A-OK when it puts a Republican into office.

[Valrifell]

Why are they bad votes because they don't vote the way you like? Heres an idea for everyone bad mouthing Chicago and other urban areas. Why don't we make urban and suburban votes count for 3/5ths of vote of rural county that way your side would always win.

They just call that the Electoral College. Because disenfranchisement based on geography is A-OK when it puts a Republican into office.

Have I ever mentioned that EC/Pop. discrepancies have literally only favored Republicans?

[San Lumen]

Why are they bad votes because they don't vote the way you like? Heres an idea for everyone bad mouthing Chicago and other urban areas. Why don't we make urban and suburban votes count for 3/5ths of vote of rural county that way your side would always win.

They just call that the Electoral College. Because disenfranchisement based on geography is A-OK when it puts a Republican into office.

I agree. Some would think it was completely fair if we elected statewide officials not by how many votes they get but by how many counties they win. Or perhaps urban and suburban votes should only count 3/5ths of a rural vote.

[Arlenton]

The point had nothing to do with voter fraud, and everything to do with people casting bad votes. People cast bad votes, but we still extend the right to vote to them. Why?

Why are they bad votes because they don't vote the way you like? Heres an idea for everyone bad mouthing Chicago and other urban areas. Why don't we make urban and suburban votes count for 3/5ths of vote of rural county that way your side would always win.

A step in the right direction. But I still think wealthy Vietnamese people should be the only ones voting.

[Arlenton]

They just call that the Electoral College. Because disenfranchisement based on geography is A-OK when it puts a Republican into office.

I agree. Some would think it was completely fair if we elected statewide officials not by how many votes they get but by how many counties they win. Or perhaps urban and suburban votes should only count 3/5ths of a rural vote.

Hey, you were on the right track until you mentioned suburban areas. Republicans need suburban votes to win.

Also the cities of Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and a few others are cool. They should get their vote doubled.

[San Lumen]

Why are they bad votes because they don't vote the way you like? Heres an idea for everyone bad mouthing Chicago and other urban areas. Why don't we make urban and suburban votes count for 3/5ths of vote of rural county that way your side would always win.

A step in the right direction. But I still think wealthy Vietnamese people should be the only ones voting.

You think that would be fair and democratic if rural votes counted more than urban votes? What if there was a system for statewide officials were you win the popular vote but don't get elected because your opponent won more counties? Would you think that was fair?

[Valrifell]

I agree. Some would think it was completely fair if we elected statewide officials not by how many votes they get but by how many counties they win. Or perhaps urban and suburban votes should only count 3/5ths of a rural vote.

Hey, you were on the right track until you mentioned suburban areas. Republicans need suburban votes to win.

Also the cities of Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and a few others are cool. They should get their vote doubled.

Personally, I think my vote should be worth 300,000,000 votes. But that's just me.

[Arlenton]

Hey, you were on the right track until you mentioned suburban areas. Republicans need suburban votes to win.

Also the cities of Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and a few others are cool. They should get their vote doubled.

Personally, I think my vote should be worth 300,000,000 votes. But that's just me.

Ok time for a compromise. You get 300,000,00 and I only get 7. But yours gets a cool little horizontal line in front of it.

[Arlenton]

A step in the right direction. But I still think wealthy Vietnamese people should be the only ones voting.

You think that would be fair and democratic if rural votes counted more than urban votes? What if there was a system for statewide officials were you win the popular vote but don't get elected because your opponent won more counties? Would you think that was fair?

Have some wealthy planters write it on a piece of paper 200 years ago then hell yeah it's fair.

[Petrasylvania]

Why are they bad votes because they don't vote the way you like? Heres an idea for everyone bad mouthing Chicago and other urban areas. Why don't we make urban and suburban votes count for 3/5ths of vote of rural county that way your side would always win.

A step in the right direction. But I still think wealthy Vietnamese people should be the only ones voting.

The Ngo Nothings.

[San Lumen]

You think that would be fair and democratic if rural votes counted more than urban votes? What if there was a system for statewide officials were you win the popular vote but don't get elected because your opponent won more counties? Would you think that was fair?

Have some wealthy planters write it on a piece of paper 200 years ago then hell yeah it's fair.

Who cares what they wrote. Thats not the question. Why would that be fair?

[Telconi]

Have some wealthy planters write it on a piece of paper 200 years ago then hell yeah it's fair.

Who cares what they wrote. Thats not the question. Why would that be fair?

Because all candidates are subject to the same rules? All candidates have the ability to appeal to both the urban and rural people? Because "unfair" implies that the system benefits one competitor over the other which this system does not.

[San Lumen]

Who cares what they wrote. Thats not the question. Why would that be fair?

Because all candidates are subject to the same rules? All candidates have the ability to appeal to both the urban and rural people? Because "unfair" implies that the system benefits one competitor over the other which this system does not.

As system like that would benefit one party over the other.

[Telconi]

Because all candidates are subject to the same rules? All candidates have the ability to appeal to both the urban and rural people? Because "unfair" implies that the system benefits one competitor over the other which this system does not.

As system like that would benefit one party over the other.

How?

[San Lumen]

As system like that would benefit one party over the other.

How?

The governor of my state won his second term due to winning in the urban centers and the NYC metro area. He lost almost every other county. He got 55 percent of the the vote. So it would be fair if his opponent won because he got more counties?

[Northern Davincia]

A step in the right direction. But I still think wealthy Vietnamese people should be the only ones voting.

The Ngo Nothings.

[Telconi]

How?

The governor of my state won his second term due to winning in the urban centers and the NYC metro area. He lost almost every other county. He got 55 percent of the the vote. So it would be fair if his opponent won because he got more counties?

Since both were playing by the same rules, yes.

[San Lumen]

The governor of my state won his second term due to winning in the urban centers and the NYC metro area. He lost almost every other county. He got 55 percent of the the vote. So it would be fair if his opponent won because he got more counties?

Since both were playing by the same rules, yes.

How would that even remotely be fair?

[Telconi]

Since both were playing by the same rules, yes.

How would that even remotely be fair?

That's how...

[Zakuvia]

A step in the right direction. But I still think wealthy Vietnamese people should be the only ones voting.

The Ngo Nothings.

Nobody? That was good.

[San Lumen]

How would that even remotely be fair?

That's how...

Its fair to you because you'd always win almost every statewide election.

[Telconi]

The Ngo Nothings.

Nobody? That was good.

No it wasn't...

[San Lumen]

Nobody? That was good.

No it wasn't...

You didn't answer my question. Why would certain votes counting more than others be fair?

[Arlenton]

The Ngo Nothings.

I'm happy with this.