- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Removed by mod
God, I hate that we have to do this math to account for arbitrary electoral college nonsense at all, but you are doing a great job of making it as painless as possible.
I can’t believe it’s this close and I hate that Harris is starting to slip in some states. My heart can’t handle another Trump presidency.
Then make plans to move out of the country. A close 2024 win for liberalism without solid leads in Congress means nothing but another nailbiter in 2028.
Moving out of the country is impossible for 99% of the people who would want to.
Who said anything about legally!
To where? Right wing fascism is on the rise pretty much everywhere.
Holy Kornacki, thank you for putting that together.
Removed by mod
jordanlund is a Lemminal treasure.
I’m starting to question 538s predictions not because there is any problem with the models, but because there is a filter on what polls they choose to include. I don’t want to call it bias, it’s just a blind spot that their model isn’t getting all the input for.
Of course it’s not like anyone else is doing a better job either.
Removed by mod
Likely voters are those that have voted before, that’s what makes them likely to vote again. For the most part they’re the more accurate people to be polling.
Removed by mod
Because new voters are a rounding error smaller than the error bars of the sample size.
Polling is pretty much like the unemployment rate. Any individual reading is meaningless, it’s a multitude of readings over time that give any useful information.
Sounds familiar
Removed by mod
No. It’s not good. It means we are going to get screwed by the electoral college bullshit again.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
The fact that it’s this close further erodes my faith in humanity. That’s not good.
He’s Jim jones.
Except the conservatives aren’t trying to just kill themselves.
Charles Manson then
Being motivated doesn’t change 300 year old bullshit laws that remove the democratic power of of all but a handful of swing states voting.
Removed by mod
Lol, no… They’ll try to do it again. If Trump is defeated, it will be despite the normal Democrat idiocy.
I’m very against Trump, but fuck the democrats. They’re overconfident morons.
Hope she wins, and pushes through something to dismantle the collage. We need ranked choice.
Removed by mod
This is just a bandaid and the conservative justices on the supreme court will strike it down for some stupid reason.
Not sure how. The Constitution is pretty explicit that States get to determine how they send delegates to the EC.
There’s a whole Wikipedia article about the legality of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
With this Supreme Court, my rule.of thumb is they will always pick the worst side of a debate, even if that goes against precedent and the constitution.
It’s also very explicit that interstate compacts require congressional approval.
Don’t hold your breath. The system works for the right people
“The right people” I see what you did there.
Unless she gets the presidency, the Democrats roll up supermajorities in the House and Senate, and a majority of states put in Democratic governors, this isn’t happening. IE: it isn’t happening.
There are in fact a couple of workarounds for this.
If Harris wins and Dems get enough majority control of both houses (enough to get around likely no votes from maverick Dems like Joe Manchin), then the Senate majority leader (Schumer) can lower the bar for a filibuster to a bare majority.
Then pass a new law appointing nine new Supreme Court justices. Harris nominates them and the Senate approves them.
Then pass a new federal law that requires the electoral vote of states to follow the nationwide popular vote, as per the Compact. You get the same effect without needing the States to sign on, and with the court packed the law hopefully will be able to withstand the challenges.
Plan B - if we really do need a constitutional amendment to fix this and abolish the Electoral College outright - then drop the filibuster as above, but then follow this plan https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review
Basically pass a law that allows each neighborhood of DC to be admitted in as a new state - so 127 in all - and with the new supermajority of states (and corresponding supermajorities in both Houses), pass whatever constitutional amendments are required.
IEE: It isn’t happening.
It would also require the Democrat will to move that mountain as above, which I don’t think exists even if there were supermajorities and governors to do it. They benefit almost as much from the 2-party system and electoral college as the Republicans.
even if there were supermajorities and governors to do it.
Just pointing out again that this wouldn’t strictly be necessary (at least in the first phases).
They benefit almost as much from … electoral college as the Republicans.
Not really seeing how this would be. Don’t Dems have a disadvantage here?
It would also require the Democrat will to move that mountain as above, which I don’t think exists
Fair point. I wish I could disagree.
They benefit almost as much from the 2-party system … as the Republicans.
Right now I’m pro-Dem especially because I don’t like the other option but … it would be so nice to realistically have other options.
Almost the whole house is up for reelection this November as well, so maybe at least that part can be handled.
The whole house and 1/3 of the senate is up for reelection every 2 years…
Yes, but I feel as though people are more active this election, so I think there’s a larger chance of at least getting rid of the super majority in the house.
We cant dismantle the electoral college easily, but what we can do is revoke the law putting caps on the number of representatives and electoral college votes. It wouldnt be perfect but it may be enough to knee cap the GOP for awhile. Also pass a law that allows reps to vote remotely from home offices in their districts.
99% of the problems stem from the house not getting bigger over the last 100 years.
Yep, both the house and college were meant to expand with tge population, which makes their issues far less egregious. Is the electoral college particularly good? Fuck no, but it was never meant to meant to be capped either it was still a proportional system. Hell the only reason either were capped was due to the fact that at the time the population was in flux both in number and location, but it shouldve been uncapped either in the 50s or 60s since thats around when things stabilized.
The electoral college makes s3nse for a federated system, but the US has largely eroded states as a meaningful level of governance.
Even without ranked choice it would be an upgrade to be rid of the college
Cat ladies doing our part! 💪😻
Don’t stop. The popular vote isn’t enough, and Trump is still a slight favorite to win.
Cat gentleman doing my part! 💪😻
Cat doing my part! 💪😻
Cat theydie doing my part! 💪😻
If Diaper wins I’m done. Just move to the boonies and just go full media blackout until 2028 or when the zombies show up
The boonies are full of red hats. That’s the last place you’ll want to be
Deep cover infiltration!
(offer not available to all melanin counts)
If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em?
If trump wins, what makes you think there will be an election in 2028 ?
He’s been pretty open about their not being another need to vote
If his first presidency during COVID wasn’t enough motivation to move to the boonies, a subsequent one without COVID won’t be.
But, I sincerely hope to see you out here with us who’ve effected the idea. There’s lots of space and, based on why you’d leave, we’d love to have you.
Don’t worry about the red hats. Most of them are fucking awesome to the people right in front of them. It’s the scaled anonymous crowd they can’t process.
I really hate our electoral college system. Giving undue privilege to certain regions, most especially rural areas, is exceedingly stupid and just holds this country back so very much. It’d be one thing if more weight was given to the areas that the most going for them - as far as GDP/brain power/influence and so on. But instead, it’s the opposite.
Apologists for the slavery-era holdover that is the EC will say “but the candidates will just mostly go to big cities” - yeah, NO KIDDING. That’s where the fucking people are. That’s who the government serves. Not land. Right now the candidates mostly campaign in “battleground states” because of the stupid and backward EC. Instead of trying to get the most votes across the entire nation.
Ridiculous.
Our Senate and House are not that much better than the way we choose Presidents, either. The population of states is not given proper consideration, even for the House.
“person may lose the election by getting the most votes” is this even a thing outside the US?
i know winning without a majority vote is a thing in multiparty systems where the winner will have plurality instead… but having the majority vote and losing is just fucking insane to me.
Unfortunately yes, it’s huge problem with first past the post systems.
how?
i was talking about electoral college. never heard a party receiving a majority vote losing in the first past the post system.
A good example is the 1981 election in New Zealand, where the Labour Party won more votes but the National Party won more seats and formed the government.
Whether it’s possible for a party to win a majority of votes but lose an election, in a first-past-the-post system, will depend on the how the electoral districts are drawn, the voter turnout in each district, and the geographical distribution of the majority. The system itself does allow this to happen.
i was talking about general elections. usually the popular vote determines it, no matter where the votes come from. you’re still talking about electoral college, not fptp.
I’m not familiar with how the US electoral college works. I am talking about FPTP electoral systems like those in the UK and Canada. One MP is elected per constituency, and if a party wins a majority of the seats (that is, if they have a majority of the MPs), they can form a government. In such a system it’s common for a party to win the majority of seats without having a majority of votes, and possible for a party with the majority of votes not to win a majority of seats.
It’s possible by using votes to mean a meaningless number that isn’t part of how a president is elected. It would be like complaining that getting the most roses on opening night should make someone the best actor.
what… that doesn’t make any sense. did autocorrect fuck up your entire comment?
Removed by mod
MSNBC - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for MSNBC:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Removed by mod
