The dems really need to focus on getting rid of the electoral college. It has cost them too many elections where they have won the popular vote.
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
49 points (78.2% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2836 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It can't really be removed because it's part of the Constitution. That would take an amendment and the bar for doing that is just too high right now.
There is an alternate plan for states to just agree to cast their EC votes for whoever the national popular vote winner is, but that plan doesn't kick in until enough states agree that total to 270.
Currently sitting at 209:
Republicans have shown, you don't need to amend the Constitution. You just need to appoint the people who "interprete" it.
Takes 50 years and multiple appointments.
Right now the court is 6-3. The two oldest judges are on the 6 side, Thomas and Alito.
If we're super lucky, Harris will win in 2024 and get to replace 1 or both of them before 2028.
I feel safe in saying, neither one will voluntarily step down knowing a Democrat will replace them, so it's VITAL to get Harris in in BOTH '24 AND '28.
Thomas was born in '48, Alito in '50. So in '28 we're looking at an 80 year old and 78 year old. 84 and 82 in 2032. 88 and 86 in 2036.
These ages are not unheard of. Ginsburg was 87 when she died.
So we might not have a chance to reverse the 6-3 court until 2036/37/38?
All it will take is ONE Republican President between now and then to go "You know what, why don't you step down so I can nominate somebody younger and lock in the conservative majority for another 50 years..."
Like Trump did with Justice Kennedy and Kavanaugh.
Even if they die and Harris or another Democrat replaces them, that flips the court from 6-3 (R) to 4-5 (D) and the next two oldest judges are Sotomayor (born 1954), appointed by Obama, and Roberts (born 1955), who has been more moderate on most issues than the other conservative judges.
So to undo the current makeup of the court, the Democrats have to keep the Presidency starting in 2024 and running through at least 2040. 16 years.
FDR/Truman was 1933 to 1953 so there is precedent, but that was before the 2 term limit. Since then, no single party has been able to hold for more than 12 years, Reagan, Reagan, Bush.
Eisenhower (R) - 8 Years
Kennedy/Johnson (D) - 8 Years
Nixon/Ford (R) - 8 Years
Carter (D) - 4 Years
Reagan/Bush (R) - 12 Years
Clinton (D) - 8 Years
Bush II (R) - 8 Years
Obama (D) - 8 Years
Trump (R) - 4 Years
Biden (D) - 4 Years
Or they could expand the court and have one Supreme seat for each appellate court.
Doing it through any method other than an amendment would just enter into a war of increased sizes. "Oh? You increased the size to 13? We're doing 17, bitches!"
Eventually, we're all judges.
There's ways to... speed things up a bit.
If we can't change the court, why not force them into an ideological corner? Challenge the law that artificially limits the size of the house on Constitutional grounds. By going originalist thinking, the house should have 1 rep per lowest population state. This would allow higher population states to massively increase the number of representatives. The electoral collage number is Constitutionally based on the number of senators (2) per state, plus the number of representatives. This allows all votes to be equal.
The OG plan was 1 Congressman per 30,000 population, which right now would mean 11,000 congressmen. 😳 You think 435 is dysfunctional...
You never know until you try. I mean look at Republicans — they’ve been beating the anti-abortion drum since Phyllis Schlafly. And now abortion has been made illegal. Maybe the dems should at least start talking about it rather than just accepting defeat.
An amendment starts with 290 votes in the House, a body who can't even get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader is. 290 is out of reach.
If, by some miracle, they get that, then it needs 67 votes in the Senate, a body blocked by a 60 vote filibuster requirement.
Assuming they somehow get both of those, it then goes to the states for ratification.
You need 38 states, and since the losers of the popular vote have all been Republicans, that means getting all 25 Biden states from 2020 + 13 Trump states.
Even then, the base of 25 states isn't guaranteed as only 19 of them have Democratic state houses. So now you may need as many as 19 Trump states?
So, yeah, an Amendment is not in the cards. Flip it around, let's say the Republicans want an amendmement to ban abortion nationwide... not going to happen.
That schoolhouse rock song is playing in the background.
he’s just gonna stay a bill with that attitude
Nah he’ll get passed. But somehow a bunch of other things will get tacked onto him and suddenly it’s not a voter bill but more military funding and corporate tax breaks.
We could just do the representatives like we used to and the EC works again.
Man, if only! Congress is dysfunctional now with 435 members.
If we appointed them per 30,000 population, we would have 11,000 congressmen. 😳
I don't think its dysfunction has anything at all to do with having too many members. A significantly larger House may even end up being much less corrupt and more functional, at least after the growing pains.
I don't think each comgresscritter should have a single vote in the house. 435 Congress people should be casting 335 million votes, one for each constituent they represent.
The objective of NPVC is great, but it won't work. If it ever comes online (which is incredibly unlikely), it will be immediately repealed the very first time it would actually have any effect, by every state that finds itself with electors voting against their own electorate. It probably wouldn't even pass judicial review since it explicitly requires electors to ignore their own constituents in favor of the nation as a whole.
It's a pipe dream.
That and the first time it would reverse an election the participating states want.
These states are voting for it because of Bush 2000 and Trump 2016, but the minute a Republican candidate wins the popular vote and loses the EC... REEEEEE!
The Republicans haven’t won the popular vote for the Presidency since George W. Bush’s second term, and he was riding a high from his post-9/11 actions; he lost the popular election to Gore the first go round. The last time a Republican won the popular vote for their first term was George Bush Sr. in 1988.
And there are accusations the Ohio 2004 election was rigged for Bush.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-it-guru-dies-in-plane-crash/
But that would mean doing something that doesn’t immediately benefit the rich. No can do.
Pay particular attention to the EC votes assigned by Congressional District in Nebraska and Maine.
In the event of a 269-269 tie, it would only take one faithless elector to flip the whole thing.
Faithless electors is a whole deal... Good novel on the subject here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Choice_(novel)
I didn't even think about those two apportioned states. Yikes.
Novel sounds interesting, I've never heard of it.
Basic premise is there's an election and the winner dies before the Electoral College votes can be counted. So who wins?
Is it the VP candidate, who got 0 electoral college votes, or the other candidate who got some but less than 270?
Is there an answer to that? Or would that be another Bush v Gore?
Oh, man, it gets INCREDIBLY complicated.
From a purely Electoral College perspective, you have to have 270 to win. So it boiled down to the electors in each state.
But there aren't really any laws REQUIRING electors to vote for who their state wanted and, in the case of death, that's kind of out the window anyway.
If nobody gets to 270, it goes to the House where it's one vote per state.
Is there an answer to that? Or would that be another Bush v Gore?
If the GOP gerrymandered house gets to select the president, this country should and deserves to burn
Let's then have trial by combat
/s
Let them have trial by combat
~~/s~~
No no no.....you have them compete on the mid-90s gv show American Gladiators.
......look man, I just really like that show. I want to bring it back. And if I get to see trump fall 20 feet after being knocked off the ledge in Joust by a big jacked steroid monster named Ice, even better!
I swear Veep is becoming more and more like a documentary every year.