Hasn't it been proven, multiple times over, that Mail-In voting is completely fine and does not have any history of being tampered with? Like, every time I read up on it, it sounds just as reliable and safe as any voting, it just takes a bit longer to count.

And for something as important as your damn democracy, shouldn't you be willing to take the extra time to do it right? I mean, it's not like the people are taking office the SECOND the polls close, is it? 

I keep wanting to say this.

I think a big issue with US's democracy is that there is a growing disparity between who has the advantage for elections, and who think they do.

Conservatives tend to think that they're at a disadvantage, "the elections are being stolen".

Despite the fact that a lot of districts are gerrymandered for Republicans.

Take Wisconsin 2018:

- Democrats got 9% more votes for their House Representatives, and yet 5/8ths of the Representatives went to the Republican party.

- Democrats got 8% more votes for their state legislature, and yet 2/3rds of the assembly went to Republicans.

Democrats would have needed to win by 20% in order to get control of Assembly.

This also happens at the state level. A lot of red states have disproportionately more representation than blue states. 

Red votes tend to be worth more, and yet they're convinced otherwise. 

https://wallethub.com/edu/how-much-is-your-vote-worth/7932

For Senator, a Wyoming voter has 64x as much voting power as a California voter. And yet the Wyoming voter is more likely to think that their vote was taken from them.

I think a major issue is that people don't understand the process. How do votes get counted? How does voter verification work? 

People don't understand all these parts of the voting process. 

It's why Tom Scott keeps making videos explaining why electronic voting is a bad idea. 

And of course there are bad actors willing to push distrust into that lack of knowledge. 

I agree that gerrymandering is a problem, but it is important to also note that it is possible for there to be discrepancies between the popular vote and seat apportionment like this without too much gerrymandering and therefore a better measurement would be to compare the gerrymandered map to the average map produced in n number of random simulations when determining whether or not there is a political gerrymander. 

As an example of a sort of "natural gerrymander", the general court of Massachusetts had a state senate of 37 Democrats : 3 Republicans (7.5% GOP representation), and a HoR of 129 Democrats : 29 Republicans : 1 Independent (20% GOP representation) before this election. This is despite the fact that about a third of the state votes Republican on a consistent basis.

Unlike most states, in Massachusetts, Republicans and Democrats are pretty evenly distributed. This means that Democrats are the majority throughout most of the state so they win pretty much every seat more or less. They'd win like this even if they didn't gerrymander, which they don't seem to need to do anyway. 

With something like Mixed-Member-Proportional-representation, Republicans would probably go from having no national HoR seats from Massachusetts (and much of New England) to having something like 15%-20% of them (assuming there is no other conservative opposition pulling votes from them.) 

At this point, given that the Supreme Court has upheld political gerrymandering, moving away from single-member districts to multi-member districts is the best option to resolve that and other problems. 

He's on the right because the guy on the news said he's far right. I see.. a crucial undeniable fact no doubt..

Since the left is all about diversity and inclusivity, to the point they'll enact affirmative action, you can't help but wonder why this hasn't been pushed in places of discussion on the internet. Those poor minorities on the right who just want to feel welcomed and be heard.

I'll blanket back.

So you say conservatives and liberals aren't all the same, and believe in many different things, some that even cross over, yet the culprit isn't on the left but is definitely on the right?

The things the culprit did, said, and was known for, aren't tied to liberals in anyway, only conservatives? How is that possible?

Both of those things can't be true at the same time. Either he's on the right because the right and left are bloc's, or we can't know his political affiliation.

Seems to me like I'm the one trying to understand, and you're the one trying to win.

It doesn't matter what any one journalist says, because the facts are out of the open. When a guy runs a blog filled with far-right conspiracy theories and the like, and then plans an attack on a left politician, then it's pretty obvious what his political alignment is. Unless someone is like you and is so much in denial that he can't help but avoid the culprit's blog in order to push his own prejudice through.

I am pretty sure the left is not about diversity and inclusivity, because they realize that in a place of unlimited tolerance the intolerant folks would ultimately win out. That's why there is so much disdain for fascists, neo-nazis, conspiracy theorists and the like. But as usual, you are having trouble to piece things together, because your own prejudice gets in the way. The far-left folks who push for an insane level of diversity and inclusivity aren't liked by the left either, because it's blatantly obvious how hypocritical and shitty these people are; hence why nobody here would like to go to ResetEra to discuss anything political.

For the love of gravy dude, did you read anything I said?

I keep saying it doesn't matter what the person was. What actual positions motivated his actions?

Here this paragraph here is the most important part of what I was saying:

>The more important point that I was making before, it doesn't matter if DePape was the most leftwing person on the planet, what matters is what drove him to do something. Which was in this case, anti-democratic/anti-leftwing propaganda. Which lots of left wingers fall for, but that propaganda is not left wing.

No, again. Please read my post instead of making stuff up.

Can't bad people simply be bad people? Why does a person need to be put into a political bucket? Bad people exist across all demographics.

You don't need to put bad person into a political bucket but some do this to themselves. A bad behavior or action is rarely devoid of motive, understanding those motive help take the right action. If one crime have been committed because of one party political rhetoric and repeated half veiled call for violence against actors of the opposing party than it needs to be called out.

1. Ranked Choice Voting
2. Abolishing the Electoral College
3. Ending Gerrymandering
4. Massively slashing the military budget.

Those are the big things, but there are more.