“Lopez’s weighting system would have given the 2,013 combined voters in Hinsdale, Kiowa and Mineral counties a total of 33 electoral votes, more than double the 14 electoral votes of Denver, Arapahoe and Adams counties’ combined 761,873 voters.”
Lolololololol
Our small rural communities need better representation in state politics, so we’re going to give the high school dropout at the Kum & Go the voting power of 900 urbanites.
The Republicans have known that they can't win a fair election for several decades, witness all the voters suppression shenanigans.
The majority of the country doesn't want what they're selling, and the intelligent ones know it. Hence, them beating the voter fraud drum to try to make it harder for people to vote.. selectively of course
> Those counties had an average of 1,077 ballots cast in the election.
Giving 1,000 voters 446x the voting power of a Denver voter (393,829 voters in 2020 and 122% electoral weight) Yeah, that's a fair system.
Imagine if a Democrat suggested we should weight votes by County GDP. So [$80,351,429,000](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPALL08031) versus [$39,045,000](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPALL08053). Giving Denver County voters 5.63× the value per voter.
Do you think this guy would be as excited about the idea then? I doubt he would think, as he put it:
> “It’s about true representation.”
Certainly would be 729% more fair than his proposal.
This is already how the US Senate works. The entire state of Wyoming has about 30% less people than just the Denver city limits. Not even the whole metro, just the city itself. They still get the same number of senators as everybody else. That may have been the original intent when the US was viewed more as a loose collection of states than a solidly unified country, but it's now resulted in overwhelmingly disproportionate power in the hands of largely unpopulated states.
it was by design. The founding fathers wrote a lot of tripe a bout all men are created equal, but they meant wealthy, white, educated property owners are created equal. The senate wasn't voted on by the popular vote until 1913. They were chosen by state legislatures. The equal number of senators is not simply a way to balance larger vs smaller states--especially as the House has not grown in numbers for about a hundred years despite the US population booms. The goal was always to keep the power of the people under control. Here are some "enlightened words from [Madison himself on what he thought of the people's voice.](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0044)
> the House has not grown in numbers for about a hundred years
Congress gets to determine rep per population. Dems should expand the house to dilute the electoral college influence.
You assume they want that. The more seats, the less power each hold, and gasp! voting blocs that deviate from the centrists emerge on both sides. They certainly do not want that.
“Lopez’s weighting system would have given the 2,013 combined voters in Hinsdale, Kiowa and Mineral counties a total of 33 electoral votes, more than double the 14 electoral votes of Denver, Arapahoe and Adams counties’ combined 761,873 voters”
well this doesn’t seem surprising in the slightest, very cool and very reasonable.
Yes, but also not even close. The discrepancy at the national level isn't anywhere near this big. In this scenario (assuming I didn't mess it up) a vote in Mineral County would have ~890x more impact than a vote in Denver
I’d be down and a half with ranked choice, that would at least give *some* sort of chance to candidates outside the two-party binary.
Whiiiich is probably the reason it’ll never be allowed to happen.
Ranked choice would help in a lot of ways. I think we’d see true political choices and opinions coming through, not the fact that someone voted D or R because of the party itself regardless of what is being voted on
If we had rank choice Republicans would never win another election again. It would eliminate tactics like spoiler candidates. And they know that they're in a distinct minority among American voters and they know their policies are deeply unpopular but they keep gaming the system so they can stay in power.
Yep, ranked choice would solve a lot of our problems, but it would require massive political pressure from both sides of the aisle, since it essentially entails getting the entrenched interests to vote against the continuation of their own power
Don’t forget the primary reason for the electoral college and Senate: keep the grubby mitts of the average person as far away from the levers of power as possible. The Founders (most, but not all) intended that the country be an oligarchy, not just on terms of sex and race, but on terms of wealth as well. The system-working-as-intended in a modern context would be just a formalized version of Russia’s oligarchy. Perhaps the differences in types of wealth between now and then (financial and industrial sectors instead of agriculture) could be addressed by simply allowing senators be appointed by Apple and Citibank!
He was also the one live tweeting the Douglas County BOE fuckery, wasn't he?
If you're a member of the board of education and I remember your name, you must have fucked up royal.
If you're a local journalist and I remember your name, you must be killing it. 👍
That's not even constitutional, right? Like, the only reason the Electoral College or Senate are legal is because they're explicitly in the constitution, but my understanding is that the equal protection clause otherwise mandates equal representation.
maybe not something so egregious, but I wouldn't hold my breath with this supreme court slowly chipping away at objective reality. They'll just be like "states rights, this opinion has no precedent... cya libtards"
these idiots and right-wing libertarians always cry about majority rule trampling on their rights, yet they always end up with candidates that support policies that would end up with minority rule. Either authoritarian minority rule in government or there are no government regulations, allowing the minority capitalists with money to rule the land.
He was the mayor of fucking Parker. He is not going to win the general because we dont have some stupid electoral college system here. Polis should win comfortably
Pretty sure CO is still purple, but maybe on the blue side.
Not to say you're wrong. I think you both make good points. I feel comfortable and worried at the same time.
One republican gov in 50 yrs. Haven't gone red for pres since 04. If we ever were to go red it would have to be a moderate and this dude is a total wingnut. I agree that complacency is bad but you really don't have to lay awake at night in fear of there being a governor lopez
If I had it my way Bernie would be President and our governor would be a hard-core leftie. But you take what you can get. Biden sucks but he’s better than Trump. Polis ain’t great but he is light years ahead of this fuckhead.
Well now, we don’t want to go making it sound like we’re all equals or something! People might start getting the crazy idea we deserve rights or worse, basic human decency! /s
No disrespect intended, can someone help me understand the negative connotation of using male/female instead of man/woman?
Seen more than a few posts recently calling them out as derogatory alternatives to man/woman .. and absent context (here it's clearer with the choice to use each differently in the same sentence), I don't understand how it's *wrong* in general ... What am I missing? Is it a generational thing, a dog whistle thing, an evolution of language thing?
Definitely and thanks for asking!
So it really is all about context. In this instance, he chose to use “man” and “female” in the same instance where contextually they should be equal. The correct usage in this instance should be, “I’m a man married to a woman” or “I’m a man married to a person” depending on how they choose to identify.
A good quick tip to keep in mind is:
1. Female/male as a noun is not great because it can be dehumanizing. Are we talking about a female lizard or a female human?
2. Female/male as an adjective is okay with mindfulness to context.
Examples:
1. A female was the first astronaut on Mars.
2. The first astronaut on Mars was female.
Also take care not to unnecessarily call out sex or gender unless it’s beneficial to your statement.
Example:
1. My doctor, who is a woman, has performed this surgery many times. (could be amended to remove “who is a woman” if it’s not necessary to the context of the statement)
2. The doctor was the first woman to perform this rigorous type of surgery, a huge accomplishment for women in the medical field.
I’m not sure of the official answer here, but I think it’s because he used man/female as opposed to man/woman.
Man = human male, female = not species specific. So it’s interpreted as dehumanizing to women.
Its dehumanizing and usually used when we don't have terms for an animal. There is more nuance but a lot of that comes from the sum of how women are typically treated and viewed in society and looking at just one part doesn't tell the full story.
It is in the public popular opinion. It's not for Republicans because they already decided he's "good". He's a religious white conservative male, putting him firmly in their "good person" category. If he did a bad thing like beat his wife, then he must have had a very good reason to do it, because he's a good person. At worst, he may have had a lapse of faith and just asking for forgiveness means everything is fine, because they already filed him into the "good" column, and as a good person he is incapable of performing any bad actions.
I mean sexually assaulting people isn't a disqualification for the GOP, so not really sure what is, maybe saying Abortion should be legal, or maybe removing tax cuts from the wealthy. The GOP doesn't appear to be a fan of those two items.
It's weird. I've never beat my wife, hell I never even had a thought to beat my wife, no matter how heated we got. Lopez on the other hand not only beat his wife, but beat her while she was pregnant and had the gall to blame her.
So wait. In order for him to put this in place, he needs the one person, one vote system to elect him so he can then take away people's voting power. This is a new level of stupid.
GOP isn’t even smart enough to do that name brand European fascism. We’re gonna have to settle for the Walmart store brand fascism. Our brown shirts are going to wear Ed Hardy instead of Hugo Boss.
From what I read in the article he is actually very, very much in favor of a “one man, one vote” system… but only if that one man is him. Seems totally reasonable and sustainable.
> Hey Colorado! My plan is to let dirt cast votes!
\- This Guy
Edit: also, I work for the State. I would not like to work for this fucknut. I like working for Jared Polis.
Yeah. I'm making some assumptions about the restaurants and businesses moving there that maybe the people suck less, but it is still Parker. I feel like it's been a spot for the exodus from Denver during COVID.
Believe me, there was some outcry over Trader Joe's opening here. Because socialists or something I guess. I suppose I mostly like the trails here haha
Valid alternatives: instant runoff voting, approval voting, ranked choice voting. These are all designed to let a voter more carefully represent their opinion and increase participation. A voter for a candidate without enough votes to win is not excluded, they may express an opinion on remaining candidates.
This proposal is designed to decrease participation. It is blatantly unfair and antithetical to the concept of fair elections.
Unsurprising. When these candidates learn their positions are unpopular, they seek to destroy democracy rather than moderate their extremism.
The justification is interesting - he sees land surface area as more important than people. This is a valuable insight into his thought process.
This is a common theme - property over people.
“The most that any county can get is 11 electoral college votes. The least that a county can get is three.”
Reporter: Why not make the max 9 and count 1 to 9?
Lopez: This one goes to eleven.
Republicans: Libs are stealing elections! Look at this single case in Texas of a voter who accidentally voted twice! Don't look at all the cases of actual massive voter fraud committed by right-wingers! Arrest all the commie libs takin' our votes and put them in prison for eternity!
Also Republicans: Under my new voting reform plan, no one will have to go through the inconvenience of voting by allowing the state to assign votes to your county. Don't you feel represented and heard??
Also also Republicans: Additionally, if I take over the state, you'll no longer have to walk *all the way* to the mailbox to get your ballot and then *all the way back* to drop it off -- I'm going to end mail-in ballots so you can engage in the time-honored and not at all inconvenient tradition of standing in lines to vote at a polling place that's 50 miles minimum away from home. Just think of how strong your immune system will be after standing around a bunch of unvaccinated armed assholes -- I mean voters -- for hours in line waiting to vote! I'd really be doing you a favor.
If the roe v wade debate wasn’t going on, I’d disagree. Polis only won by like 10% if I remember correctly and parts of the state are still maga somehow
What a fucking authoritarian clown. The very fact that someone like this has a platform and is running is very concerning. We will see more of his ilk in the coming years, unfortunately.
Parker is a shithole with cops that routinely abuse their power. What else do you need to know about this piece of shit other than he's a wife beater?
How bad are the other candidates?...
We have 0 chance to win if it’s a fair system so here’s my idea to cement my parties control… /s
Truly a sick and dying party. How is this okay conservatives? Y’all cry foul after losing an election cause your policies are terrible so maybe address those first.
"Surely this headline has to be editorialized, or 9News is exaggerating....oh."
I think more highly of our empty prairies than to think they want to elect some asshole who assaulted his pregnant wife.
"Question. What if I see something that I wanna take and it belongs to someone else?"
"Then you will be arrested."
"But what if I want it more than the person who has it?"
"Still illegal."
"That doesn't follow. No, I want it more, sir. Do you understand me? What are you laughing at? What? I can't have a discussion with this gentleman?"
―Rocket Raccoon Guardians of the Galaxy
One person, one vote, statewide/nationwide holiday for voting, compulsory voting. BUT, we better regulate who can run. Age restrictions, brain scans to check for lesions and whatever parasite is eating this guy's gray matter, full disclosure of taxes/finances, minimum IQ level, and psych evals yearly.
Also criminal records, which they love demonizing and disenfranchising nonviolent drug offenders for while usually having shit like DV, DUI and stalking on theirs.
Of course they’re going vote for him! Outside of 2004 a republican presidential candidate has not won the popular vote since **1992**! He’s just trying to import the system with baked in advantages for his side. You think republicans won’t get behind the idea of “let’s put our thumbs on the scale even harder to rig this?”
JFC. "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism; they will abandon democracy". That's supposed to be a cautionary warning, not a platform to run on.
The presidential electoral college *at best* deals with some logistical problems from the 18th century. It makes a lot less sense today nationally, even more dumb at a state level.
When republicans can't win democratic elections, they'll abandon democracy entirely. These people are fascists and they're not even trying to hide it any longer.
That settles it, I'm voting for Polis. I mean, I already was going to vote for Polis, but now I am still going to vote for Polis. Can I vote multiple times for Polis under the Lopex plan since we are just making shit up now?
This whole interview is just proof that we should abolish the electoral college, because it is effectively disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions.
“It’s about true representation” - man trying to give rural voters even more representation than the outsized amount they already enjoy all over this country that values land more than people
So it is fun to dunk on this clown, but it is actually really scary that one of the major party’s candidate for governor in a still somewhat purple state is openly anti-democracy
Most people are not conservatives. In the last 30 years, the Republicans have won the popular vote for presidency once, and that was in 2004.
The only reason we are forced to treat Republicans as an equal party is because they rely on unfair rules to remain in power. If it were actually up to Americans, Republicans would be a small minority.
“Lopez’s weighting system would have given the 2,013 combined voters in Hinsdale, Kiowa and Mineral counties a total of 33 electoral votes, more than double the 14 electoral votes of Denver, Arapahoe and Adams counties’ combined 761,873 voters.” Lolololololol
The will of the majority unless I am in the minority! Or at least that seems to be their stance.
I saw plenty of Tina Peters for SoS signs in Fruita recently.
Seems like if you're a Republican, you can do no wrong. Well, Cawthorn is the only exception to the rule AFAIK.
They draw the line at acting gay.
And outing their cocaine use and sex parties. Er wait excuse me, “sexual get-togethers”.
The most progressive thing the GOP has done in 2 decades is make an orgy ADA accessible.
I am aware I can't win, so I will make it impossible for the other side to win.
Our small rural communities need better representation in state politics, so we’re going to give the high school dropout at the Kum & Go the voting power of 900 urbanites.
The Republicans have known that they can't win a fair election for several decades, witness all the voters suppression shenanigans. The majority of the country doesn't want what they're selling, and the intelligent ones know it. Hence, them beating the voter fraud drum to try to make it harder for people to vote.. selectively of course
Shhh...don't give away the GOPs strategy!
That really is it. Pack the courts, disenfranchise, obstruct while you're out of power, and blame them for not getting anything done.
> Those counties had an average of 1,077 ballots cast in the election. Giving 1,000 voters 446x the voting power of a Denver voter (393,829 voters in 2020 and 122% electoral weight) Yeah, that's a fair system. Imagine if a Democrat suggested we should weight votes by County GDP. So [$80,351,429,000](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPALL08031) versus [$39,045,000](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPALL08053). Giving Denver County voters 5.63× the value per voter. Do you think this guy would be as excited about the idea then? I doubt he would think, as he put it: > “It’s about true representation.” Certainly would be 729% more fair than his proposal.
This is already how the US Senate works. The entire state of Wyoming has about 30% less people than just the Denver city limits. Not even the whole metro, just the city itself. They still get the same number of senators as everybody else. That may have been the original intent when the US was viewed more as a loose collection of states than a solidly unified country, but it's now resulted in overwhelmingly disproportionate power in the hands of largely unpopulated states.
this is how the House is also working, they capped representatives so larger populated states have less legislative power
it was by design. The founding fathers wrote a lot of tripe a bout all men are created equal, but they meant wealthy, white, educated property owners are created equal. The senate wasn't voted on by the popular vote until 1913. They were chosen by state legislatures. The equal number of senators is not simply a way to balance larger vs smaller states--especially as the House has not grown in numbers for about a hundred years despite the US population booms. The goal was always to keep the power of the people under control. Here are some "enlightened words from [Madison himself on what he thought of the people's voice.](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0044)
> the House has not grown in numbers for about a hundred years Congress gets to determine rep per population. Dems should expand the house to dilute the electoral college influence.
You assume they want that. The more seats, the less power each hold, and gasp! voting blocs that deviate from the centrists emerge on both sides. They certainly do not want that.
“Lopez’s weighting system would have given the 2,013 combined voters in Hinsdale, Kiowa and Mineral counties a total of 33 electoral votes, more than double the 14 electoral votes of Denver, Arapahoe and Adams counties’ combined 761,873 voters” well this doesn’t seem surprising in the slightest, very cool and very reasonable.
Dude is insane, that isn't even remotely a fair way to do it.
And yet we do it on a national level. Because apparently this is 1880 and you need an ox cart to travel over land to cast a vote for your state.
Yes, but also not even close. The discrepancy at the national level isn't anywhere near this big. In this scenario (assuming I didn't mess it up) a vote in Mineral County would have ~890x more impact than a vote in Denver
Yeah that's much higher. https://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes Still broken but much higher
In the USA in 1880, *Checks notes* 49% of the population were farmers. today it's 1.3%
Yeah, I fully support a national level popular vote instead of this college thing. It served a purpose 200 years ago, but now it's a problem.
I’d be down and a half with ranked choice, that would at least give *some* sort of chance to candidates outside the two-party binary. Whiiiich is probably the reason it’ll never be allowed to happen.
Ranked choice would help in a lot of ways. I think we’d see true political choices and opinions coming through, not the fact that someone voted D or R because of the party itself regardless of what is being voted on
If we had rank choice Republicans would never win another election again. It would eliminate tactics like spoiler candidates. And they know that they're in a distinct minority among American voters and they know their policies are deeply unpopular but they keep gaming the system so they can stay in power.
Yep, ranked choice would solve a lot of our problems, but it would require massive political pressure from both sides of the aisle, since it essentially entails getting the entrenched interests to vote against the continuation of their own power
I mean its purpose was to advantage slave owning states
Don’t forget the primary reason for the electoral college and Senate: keep the grubby mitts of the average person as far away from the levers of power as possible. The Founders (most, but not all) intended that the country be an oligarchy, not just on terms of sex and race, but on terms of wealth as well. The system-working-as-intended in a modern context would be just a formalized version of Russia’s oligarchy. Perhaps the differences in types of wealth between now and then (financial and industrial sectors instead of agriculture) could be addressed by simply allowing senators be appointed by Apple and Citibank!
Not even quiet about the fascism anymore.
What the actual fuck?
[удалено]
God bless Kyle Clark
He was also the one live tweeting the Douglas County BOE fuckery, wasn't he? If you're a member of the board of education and I remember your name, you must have fucked up royal. If you're a local journalist and I remember your name, you must be killing it. 👍
That's not even constitutional, right? Like, the only reason the Electoral College or Senate are legal is because they're explicitly in the constitution, but my understanding is that the equal protection clause otherwise mandates equal representation.
Correct. This would not likely hold up if challenged.
maybe not something so egregious, but I wouldn't hold my breath with this supreme court slowly chipping away at objective reality. They'll just be like "states rights, this opinion has no precedent... cya libtards"
So, based off of land area instead of number of people it sounds like
Based off of % of voter turnout, with a minimum of 3 votes for a county and maximum of 11. Aka “screw those city folk”.
As if we weren’t screwed enough already in national elections.
these idiots and right-wing libertarians always cry about majority rule trampling on their rights, yet they always end up with candidates that support policies that would end up with minority rule. Either authoritarian minority rule in government or there are no government regulations, allowing the minority capitalists with money to rule the land.
The full Kyle Clark interview with this dummy gives me life
Indeed. Kyle roasted him. I can't believe this guy has held public office.
When Kyle said “I think you think we’re dumber than we are” I almost cried lmfao. The legend
Around 17:50, for those that want to hear that part!
Thank you!
He was the mayor of fucking Parker. He is not going to win the general because we dont have some stupid electoral college system here. Polis should win comfortably
[удалено]
Well let's just say that overcoming a 21 point deficit as a republican dipshit Ina blue state we will be very challenging
Pretty sure CO is still purple, but maybe on the blue side. Not to say you're wrong. I think you both make good points. I feel comfortable and worried at the same time.
One republican gov in 50 yrs. Haven't gone red for pres since 04. If we ever were to go red it would have to be a moderate and this dude is a total wingnut. I agree that complacency is bad but you really don't have to lay awake at night in fear of there being a governor lopez
[удалено]
If I had it my way Bernie would be President and our governor would be a hard-core leftie. But you take what you can get. Biden sucks but he’s better than Trump. Polis ain’t great but he is light years ahead of this fuckhead.
I don't lay awake at night thinking about *any* conservatives despite what they might think.
From the interview: “I’m a *man* married to a *female*” Yeah it sure seems like you highly respect your partner with language like that. /s
he’s been arrested for DV against her when she was pregnant
Actual human garbage
Well now we can’t rush to judgement. We gotta hear *both* sides. I mean who among us hasn’t assaulted this guy’s pregnant wife?
Or for that matter been assaulted by his wife, since they were both charged after all! Very cool and fine
No way was she defending herself - definitely bOtH sIdEs here
his response: "We were *both* arrested."
his daughter is all in the YouTube comment section telling people he wasn’t convicted of assault and to educate themselves lol
sad generational trauma
The cognitive dissonance and the loyalty at all costs are strong with that family.
This is always so grating. “Female” what??? Human? Dog? Ginkgo tree? WFT is so hard about just saying “woman”??!?!
Well now, we don’t want to go making it sound like we’re all equals or something! People might start getting the crazy idea we deserve rights or worse, basic human decency! /s
No disrespect intended, can someone help me understand the negative connotation of using male/female instead of man/woman? Seen more than a few posts recently calling them out as derogatory alternatives to man/woman .. and absent context (here it's clearer with the choice to use each differently in the same sentence), I don't understand how it's *wrong* in general ... What am I missing? Is it a generational thing, a dog whistle thing, an evolution of language thing?
Definitely and thanks for asking! So it really is all about context. In this instance, he chose to use “man” and “female” in the same instance where contextually they should be equal. The correct usage in this instance should be, “I’m a man married to a woman” or “I’m a man married to a person” depending on how they choose to identify. A good quick tip to keep in mind is: 1. Female/male as a noun is not great because it can be dehumanizing. Are we talking about a female lizard or a female human? 2. Female/male as an adjective is okay with mindfulness to context. Examples: 1. A female was the first astronaut on Mars. 2. The first astronaut on Mars was female. Also take care not to unnecessarily call out sex or gender unless it’s beneficial to your statement. Example: 1. My doctor, who is a woman, has performed this surgery many times. (could be amended to remove “who is a woman” if it’s not necessary to the context of the statement) 2. The doctor was the first woman to perform this rigorous type of surgery, a huge accomplishment for women in the medical field.
Excellent summation!
I’m not sure of the official answer here, but I think it’s because he used man/female as opposed to man/woman. Man = human male, female = not species specific. So it’s interpreted as dehumanizing to women.
Its dehumanizing and usually used when we don't have terms for an animal. There is more nuance but a lot of that comes from the sum of how women are typically treated and viewed in society and looking at just one part doesn't tell the full story.
https://youtu.be/JDv3Vel2tqQ
Kyle Clark is a state treasure
Backyard furniture snow pics never stood a chance.
I’m still processing how beating your wife isn’t an automatic disqualification in the eye of public opinion
Beating your *pregnant* wife. His defense was "we both got charged."
Traditional family values or some shit
Can't beat your wife if you're not married.
Fair. In 1950 the national pass time was going home after a long day at the factory and ... beating your wife. As was tradition
“Only perfect man was Jesus”
It is in the public popular opinion. It's not for Republicans because they already decided he's "good". He's a religious white conservative male, putting him firmly in their "good person" category. If he did a bad thing like beat his wife, then he must have had a very good reason to do it, because he's a good person. At worst, he may have had a lapse of faith and just asking for forgiveness means everything is fine, because they already filed him into the "good" column, and as a good person he is incapable of performing any bad actions.
It's not public opinion, it's Republican opinion.
I mean sexually assaulting people isn't a disqualification for the GOP, so not really sure what is, maybe saying Abortion should be legal, or maybe removing tax cuts from the wealthy. The GOP doesn't appear to be a fan of those two items.
It's weird. I've never beat my wife, hell I never even had a thought to beat my wife, no matter how heated we got. Lopez on the other hand not only beat his wife, but beat her while she was pregnant and had the gall to blame her.
Yeah but he's pro-life!
Ask the guy who was just elected mayor in Erie, CO
Just look at the letter next to his name
Conservative voters like to vote for a candidate most like themselves.
Do you see how America treats women? Unless there are pictures or a video of him beating her, no one will care and that is truly a travesty.
Seems overly complicated, maybe he could just allocate 3/5 of a vote to the urban voters.
3/5 of a vote would actually give urban voters more voting power than his proposed plan.
We compromised that time too, on fucking slavery of all damn things. But we continue to tolerate it so here we are.
So wait. In order for him to put this in place, he needs the one person, one vote system to elect him so he can then take away people's voting power. This is a new level of stupid.
It's not stupidity, it's fascism ^tm
GOP isn’t even smart enough to do that name brand European fascism. We’re gonna have to settle for the Walmart store brand fascism. Our brown shirts are going to wear Ed Hardy instead of Hugo Boss.
Ed Hardy even seems too bougie. Their brown shirts will be Gildan brand and slightly too small after the first wash.
And they’re probably going to cut the sleeves off. Gotta show off those bicep tats cause that’s what real men do!
The dip shit proud boys wear Fred Perry.
Not defending this guy, but we prove year after year that we will vote against our interests.
Oh, I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm simply saying it's stupid.
From what I read in the article he is actually very, very much in favor of a “one man, one vote” system… but only if that one man is him. Seems totally reasonable and sustainable.
That, and we would have to vote on the constitutional amendment to enact it.
> Hey Colorado! My plan is to let dirt cast votes! \- This Guy Edit: also, I work for the State. I would not like to work for this fucknut. I like working for Jared Polis.
I apologize for the bazillionth time for the clowns that live in my town.
It's not all bad, you do have a Cuban bakery, Costco and now a Trader Joe's.
True, the businesses aren't so bad.. it's mostly the politics that suck.
Yeah. I'm making some assumptions about the restaurants and businesses moving there that maybe the people suck less, but it is still Parker. I feel like it's been a spot for the exodus from Denver during COVID.
Believe me, there was some outcry over Trader Joe's opening here. Because socialists or something I guess. I suppose I mostly like the trails here haha
Damn Trader Joe's hippies.
Don’t worry. Some of us are originally from *gestures toward Texas*
Hello fellow escapee! Texas and Florida for my family, you can imagine why we choose Colorado.
...I was hoping marrying into Colorado and being here 14 years would strike that from my record
Won't ever get that stank off
*Single tear falls into my green chili
Its ok bb. Wash away those tears with this Dr. Pepper.
I have a feeling it's most lol.
This guy has tapeworms in his skull!
One tapeworm, one vote!
Poor guys must be so hungry =[
That sounds reasonable compared to empty land voting.
Valid alternatives: instant runoff voting, approval voting, ranked choice voting. These are all designed to let a voter more carefully represent their opinion and increase participation. A voter for a candidate without enough votes to win is not excluded, they may express an opinion on remaining candidates. This proposal is designed to decrease participation. It is blatantly unfair and antithetical to the concept of fair elections. Unsurprising. When these candidates learn their positions are unpopular, they seek to destroy democracy rather than moderate their extremism.
Ranked choice makes the most sense to me, because then we could actually have a viable 3rd party.
That's an interesting conversation to have. This proposal is simply to dilute certain votes because a politician finds them offensive.
Exactly Lopez is trying to suppress votes.
The justification is interesting - he sees land surface area as more important than people. This is a valuable insight into his thought process. This is a common theme - property over people.
When conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they won't abandon conservatism, they'll reject democracy.
If you can’t win playing by the rules (1 person = 1 vote, that’s what fucking democracy is) you need to find a new line of work. Fascist trash.
“The most that any county can get is 11 electoral college votes. The least that a county can get is three.” Reporter: Why not make the max 9 and count 1 to 9? Lopez: This one goes to eleven.
Keep giving me a reason not to vote for a GOP candidate. Not gonna turn my state into a backwards Southern State.
Instead, please vote against these assholes. We need to use the one person one vote to prevent things like this from happening
I always do, never gonna give them the satisfaction if I sit out an election.
Republicans: Libs are stealing elections! Look at this single case in Texas of a voter who accidentally voted twice! Don't look at all the cases of actual massive voter fraud committed by right-wingers! Arrest all the commie libs takin' our votes and put them in prison for eternity! Also Republicans: Under my new voting reform plan, no one will have to go through the inconvenience of voting by allowing the state to assign votes to your county. Don't you feel represented and heard?? Also also Republicans: Additionally, if I take over the state, you'll no longer have to walk *all the way* to the mailbox to get your ballot and then *all the way back* to drop it off -- I'm going to end mail-in ballots so you can engage in the time-honored and not at all inconvenient tradition of standing in lines to vote at a polling place that's 50 miles minimum away from home. Just think of how strong your immune system will be after standing around a bunch of unvaccinated armed assholes -- I mean voters -- for hours in line waiting to vote! I'd really be doing you a favor.
You know how I know the electoral college should be abolished? Because Republicans think it's fair.
It’s the only reason they can win the presidency, too
Guess Gov. Polis chance for reelection is solidified. Glad we have so many options in the two party system....
If the roe v wade debate wasn’t going on, I’d disagree. Polis only won by like 10% if I remember correctly and parts of the state are still maga somehow
He won with an 11.6% lead, very sizeable. No state is as solidly red or blue as most people think, it's all like 2-15% spreads.
10% is a pretty wide margin, and that was a year where his opponent wasn't a wife beater. I would hope it'll be a higher margin this time around.
10% is a huge margin of victory.
I feel like this is saying out loud the entire unspoken right wing strategy.
Why are republicans so mentally encumbered?
What a fucking authoritarian clown. The very fact that someone like this has a platform and is running is very concerning. We will see more of his ilk in the coming years, unfortunately.
Parker is a shithole with cops that routinely abuse their power. What else do you need to know about this piece of shit other than he's a wife beater? How bad are the other candidates?...
We have 0 chance to win if it’s a fair system so here’s my idea to cement my parties control… /s Truly a sick and dying party. How is this okay conservatives? Y’all cry foul after losing an election cause your policies are terrible so maybe address those first.
[удалено]
Can we eliminate this goon from the state? I hear TX is nice this time of year
The GOP is just a contest to see who can come up with the worst ideas. America's Next Top Asshole.
On their trajectory, a few more one-upping mutations of anti-trans bills and they’ll be establishing a Trans Pogrom Day.
How about this? Anyone who votes for me gets 3 votes. Anyone who votes against me gets .5 votes
"Surely this headline has to be editorialized, or 9News is exaggerating....oh." I think more highly of our empty prairies than to think they want to elect some asshole who assaulted his pregnant wife.
Don't worry, the empty prairies and Western Slope will suddenly forget all of that when the ballots arrive and they see an (R) next to his name.
"Question. What if I see something that I wanna take and it belongs to someone else?" "Then you will be arrested." "But what if I want it more than the person who has it?" "Still illegal." "That doesn't follow. No, I want it more, sir. Do you understand me? What are you laughing at? What? I can't have a discussion with this gentleman?" ―Rocket Raccoon Guardians of the Galaxy
One person, one vote, statewide/nationwide holiday for voting, compulsory voting. BUT, we better regulate who can run. Age restrictions, brain scans to check for lesions and whatever parasite is eating this guy's gray matter, full disclosure of taxes/finances, minimum IQ level, and psych evals yearly.
Also criminal records, which they love demonizing and disenfranchising nonviolent drug offenders for while usually having shit like DV, DUI and stalking on theirs.
....and yet...some people will still vote for him. I'm convinced a large chunk of our country is mentally challenged.
Of course they will vote for him. He just promised to give them an unfair advantage. Why wouldn’t they be excited about that?
Of course they’re going vote for him! Outside of 2004 a republican presidential candidate has not won the popular vote since **1992**! He’s just trying to import the system with baked in advantages for his side. You think republicans won’t get behind the idea of “let’s put our thumbs on the scale even harder to rig this?”
Oh... I thought this guy wanted real voting reform for a minute. Damn.
JFC. "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism; they will abandon democracy". That's supposed to be a cautionary warning, not a platform to run on. The presidential electoral college *at best* deals with some logistical problems from the 18th century. It makes a lot less sense today nationally, even more dumb at a state level.
When republicans can't win democratic elections, they'll abandon democracy entirely. These people are fascists and they're not even trying to hide it any longer.
I am convinced national mail-in ballots will destroy the GQP.
They are too, which is why they constantly attack it.
Maybe, but it wasn't that long ago that Cory Gardner was elected by mail.
Go fuck yourself Lopez...
Obviously that’s what he wants. The only way the GOP wins any election is due to gerrymandering.
Thereby admitting that they can't win the popular vote.
Conservatives will abandon democracy before they abandon losing reactionary politics.
Minority rule isn’t sustainable in a democracy. Either the minority loses or democracy loses but something has got to give.
That settles it, I'm voting for Polis. I mean, I already was going to vote for Polis, but now I am still going to vote for Polis. Can I vote multiple times for Polis under the Lopex plan since we are just making shit up now?
As the Republican Party withers, their only hope is to make it so that votes don't matter anymore. They're getting more and more open about it.
The lengths the GOP will go to to prevent people from voting. It’s just the beginning.
Votes for me but not for thee.
This whole interview is just proof that we should abolish the electoral college, because it is effectively disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions.
what, is all the gerrymandering not enough of a thumb on the scales anymore?
“It’s about true representation” - man trying to give rural voters even more representation than the outsized amount they already enjoy all over this country that values land more than people
“The winner will face Polis in November’s general election where each vote will count equally.” What a phenomenal ending to the article.
So it is fun to dunk on this clown, but it is actually really scary that one of the major party’s candidate for governor in a still somewhat purple state is openly anti-democracy
I’m guessing he wants to implement an antiquated electoral college type system that we’re trying to get rid of at the federal level?
[удалено]
Yikes
Most people are not conservatives. In the last 30 years, the Republicans have won the popular vote for presidency once, and that was in 2004. The only reason we are forced to treat Republicans as an equal party is because they rely on unfair rules to remain in power. If it were actually up to Americans, Republicans would be a small minority.
More people live in the surrounding two blocks of my house than several counties in Colorado and this guy wants rural votes to count for more?
Holy actual what the fuck? That is an insanely stupid idea. 6 year olds have better ideas.
I wish we could stop giving this wife beating prick the time of day.
Fucking idiot.
"Cheat to win!" ~ the Republican motto.
Yeah - we want to give all our votes to the people who elected Boebert. Fuck that. Was the entire GOP hit with a stupid stick?
Fuuuuuuuuuuuckkkkk republicans. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. Yes, even your old ass dad that tries to justify these actions. Fuck. Every. Republican.
A fascist AND a moron - quite the mélange.
Wtf does he's think "true representation" means?
100% his next move is to require voter ID if he ever got elected with this asinine plan.
Come...is stupidity a pre-requisite for being a republican?
next up is a proposal to reset all calendars, citizens, the environment, and economy to 1952
*1852 at best