Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On April 22 2026 08:51 KwarK wrote: There is no usual. States are allowed to allocate electors as they see fit and some do it differently to others. Some split, some winner takes all, there’s no rule and therefore no rule change.
"There is no usual" is an odd argument to make. What there is no, is national popular vote for president, it is only fun statistic on the side, meaningless, maybe beside bragging rights. So in the same way like people look at national vote now, they will look at the single state vote if NPVIC will come. Rest of your paragraph is correct somewhat, as a matter of fact they can ignore vote entirely and assign electors as they like without NPVIC, why dont they do that?
On April 22 2026 08:51 KwarK wrote:
In your hypothetical bad case scenario the normal system is followed, the candidate with the most electors becomes president, but that candidate also happens to be the one that got more votes from the country they’re elected to be president of. Classic case of disenfrench.
Is it normal though? US citizens do not vote for president, it is not national vote, it is state wide vote, happening in all states, at roughly the same time, they vote for their state electors (elector slate, whatever), once you make statewide vote for electors having minimal impact on state electors what exactly do they even vote for?
On April 22 2026 08:56 KwarK wrote:
On April 22 2026 08:24 Razyda wrote: Currently people of this poor Alabama have the right/privilege to choose their electors by voting, once NPVIC kick in they will be deprived of this right/privilege, or one may say disenfranchised.
Alabama voters count towards the national totals that would decide Alabama electors.
Why would Alabama voters want that? Thats literally net negative for them. It is kinda like telling least populous state voters: most populous state votes will count in this state too.
Why are you trying so hard to disenfranchise people? Just let them vote man.
The degree to which Iran has humiliated Trump in the last 48 hours cannot be overstated. Iran repeatedly stated that they wouldn't be showing up to the next round of negotiations, that they have nothing further to add from the last failed round, and that they have no interest in negotiating while blockaded. Trump repeatedly insisted that they'd be there, that they want a deal, that there is a deal, that they'd sign a deal, that they're desperate to sign a deal.
According to the White House Vance was on a plane to Islamabad when he learned that Iran hadn't sent a delegation. They'd been stood up, there would be no talks. The US negotiators didn't even get a chance to offer Iran a deal, they were rejected out of hand, Iran didn't bother to show up. Iran chose to let the ceasefire expire, despite the efforts of the US team.
Trump had been pretty clear on Friday about what would happen if Iran didn't accept his deal. "If there's no deal fighting resumes".
Then on Sunday he said
My Representatives are going to Islamabad, Pakistan — They will be there tomorrow evening, for Negotiations...We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran
So we're in the situation where not only did Iran not accept the deal offered by Trump's team, they didn't hear the offer out. They didn't even show up. They humiliated them. So you'd expect Trump to be livid and to follow through on his threats.
Trump responded with this
will therefore extend the Ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted
The US will be ceasing attacks on Iran (while maintaining a blockade) until Iran puts together their own deal and presents it to the US. He added that he's actually fine with the Strait being blocked and it was his idea really.
Iran doesn’t want the Strait of Hormuz closed, they want it open... They only say they want it closed... People approached me four days ago, saying, “Sir, Iran wants to open up the Strait, immediately
Iran for their part do not recognize this ceasefire. This is currently the US declaring a unilateral one sided ceasefire where they promise not to attack Iran indefinitely and Iran is permitted to interdict the Strait indefinitely.
This administration gives me second hand embarrassment. I recalled this from a year ago. They're such fucking losers. Why did all our Bond Villains have to be so fucking cringe.
On April 22 2026 08:51 KwarK wrote: There is no usual. States are allowed to allocate electors as they see fit and some do it differently to others. Some split, some winner takes all, there’s no rule and therefore no rule change.
"There is no usual" is an odd argument to make. What there is no, is national popular vote for president, it is only fun statistic on the side, meaningless, maybe beside bragging rights. So in the same way like people look at national vote now, they will look at the single state vote if NPVIC will come. Rest of your paragraph is correct somewhat, as a matter of fact they can ignore vote entirely and assign electors as they like without NPVIC, why dont they do that?
In your hypothetical bad case scenario the normal system is followed, the candidate with the most electors becomes president, but that candidate also happens to be the one that got more votes from the country they’re elected to be president of. Classic case of disenfrench.
Is it normal though? US citizens do not vote for president, it is not national vote, it is state wide vote, happening in all states, at roughly the same time, they vote for their state electors (elector slate, whatever), once you make statewide vote for electors having minimal impact on state electors what exactly do they even vote for?
On April 22 2026 08:24 Razyda wrote: Currently people of this poor Alabama have the right/privilege to choose their electors by voting, once NPVIC kick in they will be deprived of this right/privilege, or one may say disenfranchised.
Alabama voters count towards the national totals that would decide Alabama electors.
Why would Alabama voters want that? Thats literally net negative for them. It is kinda like telling least populous state voters: most populous state votes will count in this state too.
On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: [quote] You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority.
[quote] Actually, the electoral college as envisaged by the Founding Fathers (aside from being a logistical necessity at the time) was meant to be a buffer preventing dangerous demagogues from being elected by the masses. Ironic. ;-)
How do you even post the bolded in the same paragraph? In your very example people of Alabama get disenfrinchised. It is not even that they votes dont count, they go towards exact opposite what they were voting for.
Which is exactly what happens in every voting constituency in the UK if you cast your vote for a losing candidate
You got it other way around. UK comparison doesnt really work due to different government structure, although it may be good example why this is actually wrong.
It would go like that: Constituency votes for Labour candidate, but Conservatives won popular vote, so Conservative candidate gets elected.
Both employ a winner-takes-all approach within particular locales that then contribute to national elections, that particular element is comparable. Even though yes, there are differences.
The problem is more pronounced in the UK indeed, given we have more than a few viable parties the downsides of this approach are more apparent. Party A can obtain a Parliamentary majority and rule unopposed, Party B as a sizeable opposition and Party C may have almost no seats, but they may actually have reasonably comparable shares of the national vote. Which does actually happen.
In the US, you may end up with a popular vote/Presidential states won gap, but it can only be so big. In a de facto 2 party system, it can’t get too crazy at least. If a party is pulling 60/70% of the popular vote it’s not impossible that they lose, but states would have to be rather strangely orientated in distribution for that to occur.
Anyway tangent aside, is your objection to adopting the popular vote, or this specific proposal?
This proposal. If US want to adopt popular vote, then thats what congress is for. In general election process purpose is for people to follow it, rather than getting around it.
On April 21 2026 23:36 KwarK wrote: WombaT you’re very much overthinking his position. It’s just a gotcha he heard on a podcast and tried to repeat to a real audience. There’s no underlying principle involved. An attempt to identify the foundational beliefs and use those as a basis to show why his position is not logically consistent with them is a wasted effort.
Literally read about it in Guardian, and only video on the subject I saw is the one RenSC linked...
Very on brand for someone on the left though, to not being able to imagine that one can form own opinion, rather than have one handed down.
But if a state wants to get around it, what’s wrong with that? Are states people or are they not? We can’t be disenfranchising states people after all.
People aren’t criticising the idea that you can’t form your own opinion, I just can’t even really tell what you’re arguing or why, you don’t seem to have spent much time looking at the topic before your opening ‘own the libs’ post.
I mean snark aside, I’m not a massive fan of this proposal as it feels a big fudge, I think it can be criticised pretty fairly there IMO.
You could learn something if you weren’t so hellbent on owning the libs, indeed you may end up with abilities to defend your positions much, much better with a bit of exposure to counter-arguments.
What counter arguments? response were pretty much limited to "oh ah popular vote mucho better" drivel, with couple of people being able to realise that this isnt point of contention and some casual "owning the libs" and ad hominem, neither of which is actual argument, is it?
"I’m not a massive fan of this proposal as it feels a big fudge" so your position is rather similar to mine, yet you felt the need to contest? See thats the thing, for you it "feels" a bit fudge, I know why it is.
"But if a state wants to get around it, what’s wrong with that?" Because once you start going around rules/processes they become meaningless rather quickly. Out of curiosity: what do you think will happen in case where according to usual count of EC votes candidate A becomes president, but once NPVIC kick in, presidency will go to candidate B?
"People aren’t criticising the idea that you can’t form your own opinion" I didnt say that, I said "not being able to imagine" this two have different meaning.
Edit:
On April 22 2026 04:48 Fleetfeet wrote:
Don't get baited into actually arguing the former - this whole discussion just started as criticism of Razyda for really not understanding what the fuck 'disenfranchised' even means.
Currently people of this poor Alabama have the right/privilege to choose their electors by voting, once NPVIC kick in they will be deprived of this right/privilege, or one may say disenfranchised.
...No?
Alabama voters' votes are considered and counted for the election. They aren't disenfranchised, they just lost. They were allowed to vote and their vote counted.
Let's do some quick logic with coins.
'Votes' are heads(X) or tails(O). The group is 5 coins.
In a normal vote for that group, the majority of results wins the election. All the votes COUNT, so when the result is XXXXO, X wins. No disenfranchisement.
If the election was decided differently, say "The last vote counted wins the election", then that same XXXXO vote is decided for O. The first four votes are disenfranchised - their choice literally did not matter.
Now, take our simple first group with the logical 'majority decides'. It's one group of ten groups, and while each group is decided by its respecive majority, the whole pot is decided by the majority of group decisions. This is an extremely rough analog for the EC.
Since the results are decided by majority of 10 groups, not each individual group, our O result in our simple group is not tallied because it already lost its election. The simple issue is that this can lead to a situation of the following:
Four groups ended XXXXO. Six ended OXOXO. The total tally of coins over all 10 groups is 22 O, 28X, but O 'won the election' because it won 6 of the groups.
The complex issue is that heads-lobbyists and tails-lobbyists are trying to make it so some of the coins are tails on both sides or weighted, or whatever they can do to rig the odds. That's going to be an issue either way, but is arguably a more pronounced issue where rigging one coin weights that group much more heavily. The O voter in our simple group is disenfranchised in this system - its vote does not matter.
Popular Election just looks at the sum of all coin rolls, and therefore all coin tosses matter and no toss is disenfranchised. Alabama-group could roll XXXXX and wouldn't be disenfranchised because every other group rolled OOOOO, they'd have just lost the election. Their votes counted just fine.
The FAIR criticism is I see a future where Nebraska-group decides that it's gonna flip 100 coins instead of 5, or whatever other fuckery is concocted. Not that Popular vote disenfranchises more people.
Yes. Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Ah so US citizens that are eligible to vote don't have a right to vote for the president, therefore they're all disenfranchised if you give more citizens that are eligible to vote the right to vote for the president. Got it.
On April 19 2026 01:32 KwarK wrote: Jimmy, that’s not how it works. You need ID to get on the electoral roll and you need to be on the roll to vote. Non citizens aren’t just showing up and voting no questions asked.
So if you need an ID to be on the roll, why not ask for ID when they vote if they already have it?
On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote: This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:
"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state."
I've always wondered if Euro wokes also supported the dems in blocking voter ID despise their own countries requiring it.
IMO strict voter ID should be required but also the electoral college should go, while the idea behind it are reasonable it just creates a system where only like 10% or less of the voting base truly matter.
The problem is not voter ID. The problem is Republicans keep trying to implement voter ID as a method of voter suppression. Like requiring a passport of all things to demonstrate identity. Or requiring a birth certificate... which wouldn't include most married women's current last name.
Just take a page out of the Canadian ID system- I'm sure some states already do something like it but you just won't get it at a national level because states control voter ID laws.
your driver's licence any other card issued by a Canadian government (federal, provincial/territorial or local) with your photo, name and current address
You can still vote if you declare your identity and address in writing and have someone who knows you and who is assigned to your polling station vouch for you.
The voucher must be able to prove their identity and address. A person can vouch for only one person (except in long-term care institutions).
Same day registration and a check box on your tax return that if checked the government can use your tax information to register you to vote, and you would have a robust voter ID system that wouldn't suppress American citizens' right to vote.
In México you are required to show your birth certificate to get your voter ID, if you are married and have a different legal name then you are required to show your marriage certificate.
Then your voter ID becomes your defacto verification method for everything in México, we carry it in our wallets 24/7.
These requirements sound very reasonable to me, you must legally prove your identity in order to vote.
On April 19 2026 01:32 KwarK wrote: Jimmy, that’s not how it works. You need ID to get on the electoral roll and you need to be on the roll to vote. Non citizens aren’t just showing up and voting no questions asked.
So if you need an ID to be on the roll, why not ask for ID when they vote if they already have it?
Because they’re not universally freely available and the US has a very long history of restricting access to voting.
One consequence of getting caught breaking the rules hundreds of times is that nobody trusts you anymore. If you were able to read history books you’d find them full of examples of the people running US elections explaining that the restrictions they were adding would be great because they’d enshrine white supremacy. That’s the kind of context that makes people suspicious when you start adding restrictions, especially when it’s to combat a problem that there is no evidence for.
On April 19 2026 01:32 KwarK wrote: Jimmy, that’s not how it works. You need ID to get on the electoral roll and you need to be on the roll to vote. Non citizens aren’t just showing up and voting no questions asked.
So if you need an ID to be on the roll, why not ask for ID when they vote if they already have it?
Because they’re not universally freely available and the US has a very long history of restricting access to voting.
One consequence of getting caught breaking the rules hundreds of times is that nobody trusts you anymore. If you were able to read history books you’d find them full of examples of the people running US elections explaining that the restrictions they were adding would be great because they’d enshrine white supremacy. That’s the kind of context that makes people suspicious when you start adding restrictions, especially when it’s to combat a problem that there is no evidence for.
But you said they already require ID to enroll to vote, so why not ask it in the poll itself if they already used the ID to register?
On April 19 2026 01:32 KwarK wrote: Jimmy, that’s not how it works. You need ID to get on the electoral roll and you need to be on the roll to vote. Non citizens aren’t just showing up and voting no questions asked.
So if you need an ID to be on the roll, why not ask for ID when they vote if they already have it?
Because they’re not universally freely available and the US has a very long history of restricting access to voting.
One consequence of getting caught breaking the rules hundreds of times is that nobody trusts you anymore. If you were able to read history books you’d find them full of examples of the people running US elections explaining that the restrictions they were adding would be great because they’d enshrine white supremacy. That’s the kind of context that makes people suspicious when you start adding restrictions, especially when it’s to combat a problem that there is no evidence for.
But you said they already require ID to enroll to vote, so why not ask it in the poll itself if they already used the ID to register?
ID to get on the roll is a far better system for users because it doesn’t force everyone to get everything done in a single day or miss out. People are invited to update their voter registration information when renewing drivers licenses, when engaging in property transactions, when getting tribal IDs/passports etc. Then you get your new registration card mailed to you and if there’s an error there is plenty of time to correct it. If you don’t have proof of address that day then you come back the next. It works.
I work as an election judge in US Elections. We do our best to process same day registrations for citizens who show up with IDs and proof of address and want to vote but the system has been known to be overwhelmed. A vote by ID system without a preexisting voter roll is putting everyone on same day registration, it’s unworkable. And one with a preexisting voter roll is what we already have where the ID can be done ahead of time.
The US doesn’t have voter ID cards. There are a variety of ID cards but resident aliens have drivers licenses and state IDs or military IDs. And an awful lot of citizens don’t have passports. So you’d have to invent a new ID card and get hundreds of millions of Americans to carry them. But let’s say that you did that. You’d still need to keep the current voter registration roll system, you’d not want someone who moved state to vote in the wrong one so the card alone wouldn’t be enough.
So we’re switching to ID to vote to achieve what? Prevent legal registered voters who don’t have current IDs from voting? Prevent registered voters who don’t have them with them from voting?
Given that there is no evidence of a problem, what exactly are you trying to achieve here?
I’m not saying that there couldn’t be a successful system like the Mexican one. But the politicians in the US aren’t advocating for one of those, they’re not funding a new national ID card system and Federalizing elections. They’re advocating for breaking the US system and replacing it with nothing. It’s simply not a good faith attempt to make things better.
On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote: Yes. Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors?
You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments.
On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote: Yes. Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors?
You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments.
Nonono you're mistaken, US citizens don't have a right to vote for who becomes the President of the United States and that's normal and expected.
On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote: Yes. Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors?
You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments.
Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed.
Trump is not as surprising as his 1st mandate, he is just TACO - Trump Always Chickens Out. He changes his opinion frequently. Honestly, old grandpas like Trump and Putin shouldn't be able to govern so that they don't ruin life of younger generations, but it's what it is.
On April 19 2026 01:32 KwarK wrote: Jimmy, that’s not how it works. You need ID to get on the electoral roll and you need to be on the roll to vote. Non citizens aren’t just showing up and voting no questions asked.
So if you need an ID to be on the roll, why not ask for ID when they vote if they already have it?
Because they’re not universally freely available and the US has a very long history of restricting access to voting.
One consequence of getting caught breaking the rules hundreds of times is that nobody trusts you anymore. If you were able to read history books you’d find them full of examples of the people running US elections explaining that the restrictions they were adding would be great because they’d enshrine white supremacy. That’s the kind of context that makes people suspicious when you start adding restrictions, especially when it’s to combat a problem that there is no evidence for.
But you said they already require ID to enroll to vote, so why not ask it in the poll itself if they already used the ID to register?
ID to get on the roll is a far better system for users because it doesn’t force everyone to get everything done in a single day or miss out. People are invited to update their voter registration information when renewing drivers licenses, when engaging in property transactions, when getting tribal IDs/passports etc. Then you get your new registration card mailed to you and if there’s an error there is plenty of time to correct it. If you don’t have proof of address that day then you come back the next. It works.
1 day? what are you talking about?, you have years to get your ID for the next election.
I work as an election judge in US Elections. We do our best to process same day registrations for citizens who show up with IDs and proof of address and want to vote but the system has been known to be overwhelmed. A vote by ID system without a preexisting voter roll is putting everyone on same day registration, it’s unworkable. And one with a preexisting voter roll is what we already have where the ID can be done ahead of time.
There is no need for an enrollment if you have voting ID tied to an address, you are automatically per-registered to vote in your location.
The US doesn’t have voter ID cards. There are a variety of ID cards but resident aliens have drivers licenses and state IDs or military IDs. And an awful lot of citizens don’t have passports. So you’d have to invent a new ID card and get hundreds of millions of Americans to carry them. But let’s say that you did that. You’d still need to keep the current voter registration roll system, you’d not want someone who moved state to vote in the wrong one so the card alone wouldn’t be enough.
No you don't, if you move you have to re-apply for a new voting ID with your new address.
Given that there is no evidence of a problem, what exactly are you trying to achieve here?
lol this is why the questions was aimed at Europeans because americans will just parrot their party's retarded talking points like this one.
Half your country is convinced there's rigging going on to the point congress got raided and you will keep parroting this bullshit instead of simply securing the election process.
I’m not saying that there couldn’t be a successful system like the Mexican one. But the politicians in the US aren’t advocating for one of those, they’re not funding a new national ID card system and Federalizing elections. They’re advocating for breaking the US system and replacing it with nothing. It’s simply not a good faith attempt to make things better.
Ours its not a successful system at all, rigging is rampant but at the very least we all agree the ID system is extremely important and things would be way worse without it.
If the republicans are pushing a shitty system then Dems should get the correct national ID system but they don't want that do they? they want no ID because of the same reason, it benefits them.
On April 22 2026 15:29 KwarK wrote: Given that there is no evidence of a problem, what exactly are you trying to achieve here?
lol this is why the questions was aimed at Europeans because americans will just parrot their party's retarded talking points like this one.
Half your country is convinced there's rigging going on to the point congress got raided and you will keep parroting this bullshit instead of simply securing the election process.
You just repeated a political party's talking point, not KwarK.
It is a fact that there is no widespread voter fraud in this country. That is not merely a political talking point. The fact that Republicans are wrong about this - and are actively spreading lies about election integrity - doesn't mean we should be giving in and disenfranchising voters to placate Trump and his cultists. When Congress gets raided and when an insurrection occurs by violent, malicious thugs, you need to arrest and prosecute those who break the law. You also need to try your best to explain reality and educate the rest of the population. You don't pretend the fascist criminals are right and then do what they say. You don't negotiate with terrorists like those.
Ironically, there is indeed evidence of a problem, just not one related to actual election fraud. The problem is that Trump, MAGA, and conservatives in general are consistently lying and trying to undermine our democracy.
The election process is already secure. 2016 wasn't stolen by widespread voter fraud. 2020 wasn't stolen by widespread voter fraud. 2024 wasn't stolen by widespread voter fraud. Stop parroting a party's incorrect talking point.
On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote: Yes. Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors?
You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments.
Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed.
We're talking about a situation where Alabama adopts the NPVIC, so you're wrong.
On April 22 2026 15:29 KwarK wrote: Given that there is no evidence of a problem, what exactly are you trying to achieve here?
lol this is why the questions was aimed at Europeans because americans will just parrot their party's retarded talking points like this one.
Half your country is convinced there's rigging going on to the point congress got raided and you will keep parroting this bullshit instead of simply securing the election process.
You just repeated a political party's talking point, not KwarK.
It is a fact that there is no widespread voter fraud in this country. That is not merely a political talking point. The fact that Republicans are wrong about this - and are actively spreading lies about election integrity - doesn't mean we should be giving in and disenfranchising voters to placate Trump and his cultists. When Congress gets raided and when an insurrection occurs by violent, malicious thugs, you need to arrest and prosecute those who break the law. You also need to try your best to explain reality and educate the rest of the population. You don't pretend the fascist criminals are right and then do what they say. You don't negotiate with terrorists like those.
Ironically, there is indeed evidence of a problem, just not one related to actual election fraud. The problem is that Trump, MAGA, and conservatives in general are consistently lying and trying to undermine our democracy.
The election process is already secure. 2016 wasn't stolen by widespread voter fraud. 2020 wasn't stolen by widespread voter fraud. 2024 wasn't stolen by widespread voter fraud. Stop parroting a party's incorrect talking point.
This isn't being stressed enough. The only party to have attempted election fraud in living memory is the same party that our self-proclaimed defenders of election integrity support!
EPT
