1050
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] goatmeal@midwest.social 69 points 1 month ago

That’s great but do an electoral college majority want to end the electoral college?

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 month ago

Yeah this headline is like "animals disapprove of farm"

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago

Doesn't matter. Ending the electoral college would require an amendment, and amendments require 3/4 of states to approve them. Abolishing the electoral college benefits California and the smallest states that expect to always side with California no matter what, which doesn't get you to the 38 states required.

[-] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It would not. There is already a pact with a bunch of states that say once they have enough support they will put their electoral votes towards the popular vote of the country not the popular vote of their state. If enough states get on board the EC becomes powerless. Because the states determine how they vote.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

They are getting close. A couple more states needed for activation.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

And if and when it gets passed, the conservative scotus, which has constantly ruled in favor of states rights being nearly unlimited and that precedent or other writings about the cotus don't count, will buck both these trends and vote that this violates the cotus based on some obscure writing by some founding father.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

This SCOTUS would uphold Dred Scott v. Sanford.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Republicans: "States rights!" States: Decriminalize cannabis, affirm women's rights, sign on with the NPVIC, etc... Republicans: "No, not like THAT!"

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 month ago

Probably that interstate compacts have to be approved by Congress. It would be the most obvious angle of attack.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

Doesn't end it, merely does an end run around it. Also unlikely to ever take effect, because to get to 270 electoral votes worth of states supporting it you're going to need to get states on board with it who will directly lose influence and/or who generally don't vote in line with California and moving to the winner being decided by national popular vote (whether directly or by using it to pledge electors) essentially makes the result largely determined by turnout in California (both times in recent history the popular vote and electoral vote were not in alignment, the margin for the national popular vote was smaller than the margin in California).

It's a lower bar to reach than actually ending the electoral college, but it's unlikely to succeed for essentially the same reason - you have to get multiple states that will essentially lose any influence over the executive branch if they approve it to approve it.

[-] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I read that last part as, “A couple more states needed for Activision” and my blood pressure temporarily spiked lol.

[-] goatmeal@midwest.social 8 points 1 month ago

Yea you’re right. I just thought it was funny that a majority of Americans disprove of something that prevents a majority of Americans from being able to choose something

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago

Fair enough. There's an interstate compact that's been joined by several states that does an end run around the electoral college (all member states agree to give their electors to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of their state's votes once 270 electoral votes worth of states join). That's a lower bar than the 3/4 of states needed for an amendment, but will also inevitably face a legal challenge regarding needing federal approval as an interstate compact.

It's still...several states away from going into effect for basically the same reason an amendment on this won't pass - it benefits California and the smallest states that expect to always side with California, which isn't enough to get to 270 electoral votes.

[-] goatmeal@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago

That’s interesting. Do you know which states haven’t yet joined/would be the most likely to flip to get to the total?

[-] Lumisal@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Wha?.. Math hard you go ungabunga? California population has 38 million. That's only 8 million more than Texas.

Also, voting wouldn't be by state anyway, so it wouldn't matter? Not all 38 million Californians will vote the exact same way.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 month ago

Err, ending the electoral college requires a constitutional amendment. Proposing a constitutional amendment requires either 2/3 of state legislatures or 2/3 of both houses of Congress to set in motion and requires 3/4 of states to approve. This is why the ERA was never ratified - it only got 31 states.

this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
1050 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2743 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS