Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
Finally the dems are saying it out loud. They should have been yelling this from the treetops since Bush vs Gore.
It's easy to say and harder to do anything about. I believe it would take a constitutional amendment to fix on the national scale, or "opt-in" from enough states on the state level.
The first step towards change is elevating the conversation to high office, though, so this is something.
Completely agree!
The popular vote contract sounds interesting, but I like ranked voting more because it allows flexibility in sampling the public opinion of who they'd want. Think of any question a poll could ask you where you feel there isn't a clear yes/no or single answer. Isn't it better when it allows you to pick from a few choices that together reflect your answer? An election not only could turn out more voters, it could give statistical nuances on how people lean among the ones that voted in the winner. Eg., how many that voted both Democrat candidate as well as certain other parties.
Just had a thought that we could even see a person vote Democrat and Republican on a ticket. But at least they got their vote in and showed how they're torn.
Yes, the compact is definitely a way to get around the current system, not to overhaul it (which it desperately needs but would require 2/3 approval instead of >50% of the electoral college). I agree that if we are able to get constitutional amendments on the table, we should be looking at ranked choice or approval voting systems! But one of the big issues right now is unfamiliarity with either of those systems, and a lot of familiarity with popular choice. That's why it's so important that the many, many local and statewide initiatives for ranked choice get support!
Agreed, the more we see ranked choice locally the more support there will be to expand it. Also "easier" to get it changed at that level.
The popular vote contract sounds interesting, but I like ranked voting more
Those solve two different problems. The first solves the problem of a candidate winning despite having fewer votes; the second solves the spoiler effect.
This and Ranked Choice Voting.
By 2032 Texas will be a solid swing state and the EC becomes near impossible for the GOP to ever win again
We can wait them out, and reap the benefits
Eight years of right wing malignancy left, may the odds be ever in your favor.
People argued this idea of a permanent Democratic majority in the 2000s and then again after Obama's election but it never materialized. GenX, with its liberal sensibilities, the rise of college educations, and increased diversity among the population will make it impossible for Republicans to win. Then GenX got older and more conservative and people realized that minorities and college grads could also be made to hate immigrants and queer people.
This idea that "just waiting" is all it will take to end conservatism and other bigotries is a fantasy.
There are two issues:
Parties aren't set in stone, Republicans will shift some positions to appear more palatable and move some states redder
If they take power now they are likely to increase Gerrymandering and voter suppression to give themselves an advantage.
I've been hearing that for a while. Of course then again the people that said that don't seem to have an answer for the fact that in 2022 Republicans swept the entire state by like 10 points. So maybe we should stop counting on that.
Here's a comparison of Barack Obama's, Hillary Clinton's, and Joe Biden's election results in Texas:
| Election Year | Democratic Candidate | Vote Percentage | Republican Candidate | Vote Percentage | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Barack Obama | 41.4% | Mitt Romney | 57.2% | 15.8% |
| 2016 | Hillary Clinton | 43.2% | Donald Trump | 52.2% | 9.0% |
| 2020 | Joe Biden | 46.5% | Donald Trump | 52.1% | 5.6% |
This is the trend
Here's a comparison of Bill Clinton's, Al Gore's, and Barack Obama's election results in Florida:
| Election Year | Democratic Candidate | Vote Percentage | Republican Candidate | Vote Percentage | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | Bill Clinton | 39.0% | George H. W. Bush | 40.89% | -1.89% |
| 2000 | Al Gore | 48.84% | George W. Bush | 48.85% | -0.01% |
| 2008 | Barack Obama | 50.91% | John McCain | 48.09% | +2.82% |
Florida is reliably blue now, right? Since 2010, the Hispanic proportion of the state has grown by 5 percentage points while the white proportion has shrunk by a similar number. It's gotta be like Dem +8 by now.
Wow, that's crazy a VP candidate for one of the two parties is actually saying this.
Respect.
I want Walz as president.
There's a joke here somewhere, but you get a visit from the secret service if you say it...
"but then it would be majority rule!! no faaaaaairrrrr"
-the party of fuck your feelings get over it
If you live in a state that hasn't joined the NPVIC push your state legislature to adopt it.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status
Shows the list of states and each state links to a post submission to message your state’s legislature
My worry with that is the supreme court would just declare it void.
I am worried about that too, but I also think that we should still fight to improve things regardless of the threat of a regressive court undoing our progress.
How could they? At the end of the day isn’t it up to the states to decide who their electoral votes go?
How could they make a president immune from any checks and balances?
How could they allow states to enforce draconian laws against the homeless?
How could they work towards ending voting rights?
How could they give lower judges the power to overrule experts?
They can. They have. They will again. The states have the constitutional right to select their electors as they choose, but this court has demonstrated complete contempt for justice and fairness.
Unfortunately, the supreme court has zero checks and balances, and recently has been willing to make partisan political rulings, so it may well strike it down to help Republicans.
That'd be great!!!
I live in a deep red state. My vote won't matter as my states EC votes will go for the Republican candidate.
A popular vote would make my vote count finally.
The far easier plan is to simply increase the size of the House of Representatives. All it needs is a change, or repeal, of the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929. Replace it with something like the Wyoming Rule and done.
Not only does that fix Presidential Elections it would also fix or substantially ease a pile of other problems like Gerrymandering by giving the denser population areas the Representation they should have.
The HoR being fixed at only 435 seats is at the core of so many problems in this country.
Nah, even then the smaller populated states like mine have an outsized influence because it is senate (2) + house (population) number of votes per state. Our votes don't deserve to count more for the head executive (President) that represents everyone.
there wouldn't be a republican president ever again. they won't allow this
I was shocked when I first heard about some people deciding, instead of how many people actually voted for a candidate.
Apparently some Americans were, too.
Repubs want an electoral college, because it's the only way they can win
Repubs want to keep gerrymandering because it's the only way they can win
electoral college is DEI for conservatives
Not to mention that a popular vote would be much more secure, and cheaper.
The republicans will see this as a threat to their way of life. Idiots.
You need 2/3rds majority to pass the constitutional amendment required to make this happen, so as long as Republicans exist this isn't going to ever be the case. It means they'll never win another election.
Not just that, you then need 3/4 of states to sign off on an amendment before it takes effect. More than 1/4 of states benefit from the electoral college, which makes it a hard sell.
There's also that interstate compact (which if it ever takes effect will be challenged in court on grounds that interstate compacts are supposed to be approved by Congress), which is also highly unlikely to take effect for the same reason - there aren't 270 electoral votes worth of states that are either big enough that the electoral college hurts them or willing to hitch themselves so going along with whatever the two or three largest states want.
He is absolutely right that it should be scrapped, or failing that, every eligible voter in every state is automatically enrolled in the electoral college and their ballot is also their vote cast in the college, i.e. render the whole thing a technical irrelevance. It shouldn't even be seen as a political thing. Votes in deep red states are just as disenfranchised as those in deep blue states. Voting Republican in California or New York is as disenfranchising as voting Democrat in Texas. So if democracy is the intent, then it should be scrapped and not left to the usual "swing state" BS.
Ah, but that is the thing - democracy is not the intent. It may be the intent of some, but it is not the intent of the system as a whole.