In actively trying to subvert the results of the election, the GOP has shown unapologetically that aside from power, what they want above all else is the ability to tax the American people without actually having to represent them.
... a dangerous percentage of the Republican party is unwilling to accept the results of an election unless they themselves were the winners. They want our tax dollars to fund the subsidies for their donors from the Military Industrial Complex and the Oil industry, but they don’t want us to be able to exercise our rights to chose who governs us. [emphasis mine]
I can't help but think that the system of using the electoral college to decide on the presidential elections has allowed the Trump imbued and corrupt GOP to act in this selfish way.
The Electoral College certainly distorts the will of the people. Voters in less populous states such as Vermont and Wyoming are rewarded with disproportionate influence: it takes 3 1/2 Californians to equal the voting power of one Wyomingite. And 48 of 50 states award their electoral votes using a winner-take-all rule, that in 2016 resulted in some 28 million wasted votes. (Any vote for a state's winner beyond a bare plurality, and any vote for a third-party candidate, couldn't help those candidates in other states.)
The Founding Fathers could not have imagined the 68 to 1 ratio between the most and least populous states. Around the founding of the nation it was more like 12 to 1.
Speaking of which, the U.S. Senate, with two senators per state regardless of size, is even more undemocratic. 16% of Americans are represented by 50 of 100 senators; the other 84% only get the remaining 50 senators.
And since most of the small states, with their disproportionate power, are "represented" by Republican legislators, the Republican Party is thwarting the will of the American people. (That's a systemic problem quite aside from their recent more-overt-than-ever willingness to subvert our democratic system.)
I've not always believed in the proportional representation system to elect our parliament and government, but I've come to accept that the First past the post system is profoundly undemocratic and disenfranchises millions of voters
A detailed examination of range voting (score voting), and comparisons to other voting systems including first-past-the-post (choose just one candidate on the ballot; plurality wins), is at math PhD Warren Smith's site rangevoting.org. He concludes that by a measure of "Bayesian regret" modeling voters' disappointment with not getting their ideal candidate elected, range voting is actually as much of an improvement over first-past-the-post as "democracy itself" (first-past-the-post) is compared to randomly or dictatorially choosing the winner.
(Range voting means giving every candidate on the ballot a score, say 0-9. Much more expressive than first-past-the-post and even ranked choice ballots. No splitter or spoiler effects. Highest average wins.)
I gotta say, I still have a bit of anxiety regarding the ultimate outcome of the election. I don't trust the electors, for one. When 77% of all Republicans think the vote was rigged, that scares me. When only 27 members of the House Republicans say Trump lost, that scares me. Then there's this Texas suit thing with other states pitching in to back it. I mean, what the hell is going on? Will this madness ever end?
The erstwhile "party of Lincoln" has turned 180° to become the party of John Wilkes Booth.
I used to think the clincher was 2016 candidate Trump's "jokes" about "Second Amendment" solutions to a President Hillary Clinton nominating the wrong justices and judges. (See Zack Beauchamp and Jason Steed on why nobody is ever "just joking".) But with over a quarter-million needless COVID deaths in the US (and counting), with one 9-11 or some 750 Benghazis every day, in recent weeks, the Republicans and Trump have lowered "I've got mine, screw you" to a deadly new level.
It's time for the GOP Republicans (nothing "Grand" about them!) to go the way of the Whigs and dozens of other political parties, into the dustbin of history. That's not a sufficient condition for ending the madness, but I think a necessary one.
And it can't happen too soon.
"Progressives are pushing for Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to avoid seating any Republican House members who have publicly supported President Donald Trump's attempt to steal the election from Democratic President-Elect Joe Biden." -- as in signing onto Texas's frivolous lawsuit seeking to overturn Joe Biden's legitimate election.
"That's because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment literally says that anyone who has tried to rebel against the Constitution after having pledged to protect it can't hold political office."
I'll add that if Georgia residents succeed in voting their Ossoff (and Warnock) into the Senate in early January, getting a razor-thin margin of Democratic control with VP Kamala Harris breaking ties, Senate Democratic leaders can and should use the 14th Amendment to avoid seating Republican senators who've similarly rebelled against the United States.
In a Democratic Senate, the first two agenda items should be
It's true that using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment this way goes against previous norms and traditions. But those norms were destroyed when Mitch McConnell refused to give a hearing to any of Barack Obama's judicial nominees, and when McConnell refused to allow the Senate to even consider the many bills passed by the Democratic House. No more "civility" or compromise; it's time to do everything possible to undo the undemocratic Rethuglican power grab.