all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

Will They Do It?

No

Next question, please

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Damn, not only the requisite number of states, but also the Congress majority to permit the compact as mandated by the Constitution

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    The national Congress has no say, cannot have a say. The article is talking about Democrats taking state houses and governorships, giving those states the opportunity to join the pact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

    There are arguments for both views. Realistically given the political environment I have a feeling that the Supreme Court would decide that they do get to weigh in, and they would probably rule that congress has to approve it. In general, agreements between states, like the voting compact, do require congressional approval because having the feds as a mediator could prevent two states from getting into it or going to war with each other over any given compact. States are like tiny independent countries up until they arent, and this is one area where its sensible for keeping the peace if they arent allowed to be such a high degree of independent. Just like how some random state cant decide to have their own independent relationship with a foreign government

    The good thing is that if that happens, then itll be cool beans either way.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Will they do it? Depends on how hard we pressure them. We can't let a blue wave leave us complacent. We haven't won shit yet.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    I like Al-Sayed's approach. He said he was not worried about losing the election. His biggest worry was winning the election and failing to make a difference.

    This blue wave is nothing but the starting bell. The real work starts now. Let's stay annoying and never get off of our representatives asses.

    PS: Epic username.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 day ago

    It's popular so no

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago
    [–] 4 points 14 hours ago
    [–] 2 points 13 hours ago

    If they listen to the new batch of senators and house members. But they love the money and corpo dems get rich wither it’s the gop or Dems in charge and it’s for that very reason the perfer republican over progressive Dems. Who cares if we have concentration camps filled with children as long as they get there blood money.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    It's something they can use to conveniently blame when they lose instead of themselves so probably not.

  • source
  • [+] -12 points 1 day ago (9 children)

    Going down this road means that only NYC, chicago, LA voters count.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

    I live in Tulsa, OK. I've voted blue and my vote hasn't mattered in all the years I've been able to. This would make it actually count for something.

    It's not that only big cities count. It means that your vote counts not matter where you live. Land doesn't vote, so why are we assigning votes based on location rather than population, which is actual people?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Population density. If a candidate can carry NYC, chicago, LA there are enough votes that they can ignore the vast majority of the country

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Yes, that's where populations tend to be.

    Are you arguing the individuals who live there should have their votes count for less because of it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 21 hours ago

    I'm arguing that a monoculture of urban elites should not dominate the government. In theory, the judicial arm of the government would protect the interests of minorities but the judicial branch is composed of coastal elites as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

    So "only" the majority of the people. Got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 33 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 75 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Remember, if the headline asks a question, the answer is no.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 4 days ago

    No course they aren’t

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 4 days ago

    Hear that ratchet sound?

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 4 days ago
    [–] 5 points 4 days ago

    It depends on what their donors want.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago

    I think the question comes down to who are the states not on board that can now come on board and would it benefit them?

    And unfortunately, the states that could sign on that now have trifectas according to the article are all benefitting from the current system: Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. Since they are swing states.

    And several of them have presidential hopefuls that I am sure are trying to fundraise on the fact they can deliver those states. 2 of which are governors. So I think this is all a long way of getting to what the OP said...

    TLDR: Most likely no, they will not sign on.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    They should absolutely try, but let's be clear - it would not work.

    The moment they do it, it will trigger legal challenges from the red states, which will eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court, which, given its current conservative composition, would rule some bullshit like "The constitution intends for smaller states to have greater representation and this is an illegal end-run around that", and then the compact is dead forever.

    You only get one chance to get a ruling on its constitutionality, and you want to pull the trigger when your odds are best.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    Even if the Compact were not allowed, those states could all individually appropriate their electors to the popular vote winner if they wanted to. Not that they will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

    Without the legal structure of the compact, it would become a complete mess of every legislature fighting over electoral vote allocation methods every 4 years, and it would almost certainly be the case that that would not always be a democratically desirable allocation.

    Even if the compact passed, the moment one of the legislatures flips, one of the states could pass legislation to suspend or remove themselves from the compact, and we're right back to the electoral college.

    I'd love to see popular vote as our selection method too - but the interstate compact is a fragile hail mary that, while we should pursue it, is likely not proportionally durable or useful enough to justify the amount of political capital and effort it would take to make reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    I think this speaks to a problem Democrats have that Republicans don't, which is we insist on each action being fully considered, planned and weighed against alternative uses of energy, whereas Republicans just do it.

    The advantage they have is that, by just acting, they can do a lot more, which creates more and more work for us to fight. And what we forget is that, like how they cause problems for us in having to litigate and roll back what they do, what we do also causes problems for them that takes effort to fight.

    So instead of pre-defeating it, I think a better conclusion is that we should do for laudable and progressive things what republicans do for morally, constitutionally and legally wrong things: just do as much as fast as we can, and let them worry about spending time and energy fighting it. Sure, we of course follow the law, but stop over-optimizing and planning.

    So the reality is, they will have to triage too. And if NPV exists, with bipartisan buy-in (as it seems to poll usually) as the status quo for a few cycles, it may be very costly and probably not worth it for Republicans to fight it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 4 days ago
    [–] 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Spoiler: No.

    It's absolutely wild how you keep throwing that shit out there with absolutely no logic and counter to everything that's happens since neoliberals got the boot from running the DNC.

    It's like if AOC gets elected in 2028, and you tried to convince people that since she's a president now, she'll be the same as trump. Because he was also president.

    Completely nonsensical and absent of logic, but you just keep repeating it over and over...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (2 children)

    If the NPVIC want to be taken seriously, they need to ignore Democrat majority states, and exclusively lobby the safe conservative states. As long it's marketed as the Never Elect Another Republican Interstate Compact, and sold exclusively to states who think that's a good idea, it paradoxically can only be used to do the exact opposite and elect a Republican who otherwise would have lost. Until the movement gets significant bipartisan support, I see fundamentally four cases:

    1. The compact does nothing because the majority threshold isn't reached.
    2. The compact does nothing because the Democrat wins all the compact states and the national popular vote and the electoral vote is unchanged.
    3. The Democrat candidate wins an electoral majority from the compact states, but loses the popular vote. All the compact states vote for the Republican as the compact requires.
    4. Same as 3, but the compact states allege voting irregularities in Idaho and unanimously agree to not count those votes so that the compact states can vote Democrat like they would have done without the compact.
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    It will never be bipartisan because the Republicans benefit immensely from the EC. Before Trump 2 they had never won the popular vote in my lifetime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago

    Ok, well then there's no point doing it at all. If the Democrats have 270 safe electoral votes, then they don't need a compact, don't want a compact, and won't even feel obligated to hold themselves to its terms. They can just use their existing electoral college majority to elect the Democratic president they want, regardless of the NPV totals.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)
    [–] -4 points 4 days ago (9 children)

    Why would smaller states, democrat or not, vote for this? It makes no sense for them.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    How would it not make sense for them? The vote just counting directly makes sense for everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    Low population states have disproportionate power in the electrical college. Wyoming has half a million people but gets 3 electrical college votes (1 for house rep 2 for senators) 166666 people per elector. Texas has 40 (38+2) and 31 million people, or 775000 people per elector.

    A vote in Wyoming is worth 5 in Texas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    Right...

    But these small Dem states know that the EC is Republicans only path the the White House...

    Getting rid of it benefits them personally because:

    1. More Dem presidents mean more chances for them to be president or cabinet. It makes the party more powerful, which makes them more powerful.

    2. At this point Republican presidents may arrest them for bullshit anyways, not to mention ICE random killings. It's a real physical danger to everyone, especially since that whole "kidnap your 90 year old mom" shit.

    Like...

    Why are people caught up on that one tiny aspect of why they'd want the EC, instead of the shit ton of reasons why they'd want to stop the other party from every being president again?

    Did someone internet famour say it? Or billionaire owned media?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (2 children)

    1 op said Democrat or not

    2 low population states are Republican more often than not (12/22 states/districts with 6 or fewer electoral college votes)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Why would Dems vote for something that helps everyone?

    Because people picked progressives in primaries...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure you understand how the electoral college works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago

    ....

    Alright, here it is, simple:

    Some people put the interests of everyone over their personal interests.

    If you absolutely need a selfish motivation:

    Even Dems in smaller states realize the electoral college is the only way Republicans can become president, and Republican presidents are bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -14 points 4 days ago

    Are Democrats democrats? Or are they like communists from the Chinese Communist party?

  • source
  • 7 comments in c/pravda_news@news.abolish.capital view that post
    [–] 25 points 5 days ago

    Yeah. They won't, though.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 days ago

    Narrator: They did not.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 days ago

    Yes. Do that.

  • source
  • [–] -4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

    iirc congress has to approve, too. and by extension that would also include the president's signature on the bill that authorizes a multi-state compact.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_3:_Compact_Clause

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    States determine how they award their delegates. the states can decide to make it law that their delegates are awarded to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the outcome within the state

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment