Misrepresent? You are throwing the same nonsensical bullshit against the wall. There is no nexus between one presidential election and the make up of Congress that should erase the considered individual congressional election results throughout the country.
What are you suggesting? That in two years after Reagan won, we cancel the bi-elections? I mean, we don’t have a presidential race to tell us how many congressmen should be from what party in every state two years later. Cancel them, I guess… or use the same percentage until the next presidential election? That is stupidity on steroids. You are arguing to cancel individual state congressional elections with some vague process that matches Congress party apportionment with a presidential election result.
And what do you intend to do with winning candidates who are independents? They have no winning presidential candidate to allow them to latch onto their coattails and go to Congress. So I guess we ban independents and replace them with GOP members?
It ignores the political maxim that all politics is local. You provide no mechanism for how you decide who sits in Congress, or how we figure out off year election congressional seating. Ag has not bothered to share that and you have not bothered to interpret that for him.
The bottom line is, you can’t throw out some bullshit like this that eviscerates the constitution’s enactment of congressional elections - and not share one peep of how this presidential popular election result controls the make up of Congress mandate will work - or why it is not patently unconstitutional. I mean, you can, and just did, but that doesn’t make the author of this plan immune from criticism for expressing it.
“Lets do some stuff nullifying the constitution and popular elections to get more GOP members in Congress” obviously holds some attractiveness to Ag and like thinking MAGA’s, but it would really be helpful for him to get a little more granular if he wants acceptance of that idea.