All well and good right up until it works against you… Everyone points to Gore and Clinton, but imagine what happens the first time a Democrat loses under this system, there will be riots.
Why do you think that is true? The only violence from people unhappy with a presidential election that I can think of is the MAGA insurrection in 2021.
Unless Maine also repeals their use of instant runoff voting for the presidential election, their own votes won’t count toward the national popular vote. The compact makes no provision for counting ranked ballots, and there isn’t really any fair way to do so anyway.
So, how is this more democratic AND Nebraska doing away with EVs by congressional district less democratic? Is making the winner based on less granular vote or more what we want?
The goal should be making the national popular election the deciding factor in a presidential race, Maine is moving us closer to that goal, Nebraska is not.
I don’t live in a swing state and I feel disenfranchised. My vote for president, for all intents and purposes, does not count in the current electoral college system.
I can’t wait for the compact to go into effect. Turnout in so many states would increase a lot.
However, my optimism is tampered by this supreme court.
Wow, long thread about it. By the way, I didn’t add the “don’t” after your comment. I just fixed a typo from “I can’t way for…” to “I can’t wait for…”. The “don’t” was there all along. You may have missed it. But no worries. I think we are all on the same page here.
Yeah, I wore that eight hours into a 12 hour graveyard shift. My brain was not fully functioning and I just wanted to inform the guy that you had updated your comment
If you live in an city you vote is disenfranchised thrice over, you just don’t realize.
You are correct, in a swing state your vote would carry more weight. But then you’d be subject to the propaganda and media campaigns lobbied against those populations for like 18months before the vote. It’s exhausting.
If you are in a populous state your vote is diminished by only having 2 Senators. 2 Senators per state, regardless population, GDP, et al, gives undue power to smaller states at the cost of the bigger ones. Taking from one group of people to give to another is socialism right? I missed that lesson of fox nows, idk.
But the house. There’s no reason to cap the house at 435. Zero. Zilch.
The UK, for comparison has 1442 politicians in its two houses under the King. America, 40x the size, with 5x the population, has 535?
Wtf?!?
We need to uncap the house. Like yesterday. Constitutionally it’s supposed to be 1 rep for 30k citizens. That’d mean 11000 members of congress.
I say good. I’m all for power being diluted. Always in all ways. I want power so diluted entropy would take notice.
It’s literally pending in enough states to be enacted nationwide. If only 270 EC Votes get pledged to the popular winner then the popular winner gets the presidency every time. As long as it doesn’t die in a committee then it could be up and running before the 2028 election cycle.
It’s officially the law for 205 votes, it is pending vote in states adding up to 101, for a total of 306. And mind you, 5 states joined in the 2 year period before the 2020 election.
Do you realize how many bills are pending votes lol? Marijuana legalization is pending votes all across the USA, doesn’t mean I can light up in the Deep South anytime soon
I didn’t think “getting there” is going to happen in our lifetime. We’re just going to hit a ceiling where “obviously blue” states join, and the rest don’t, which will hit before 270.
I’m a dirty foreigner and I’m not too clear on the status of Puerto Rico, but somehow I’d assumed that they’d get to vote in federal elections since they’re a part of the country
That honestly seems a bit fucked up. What on earth do they get out of the arrangement if they’re not even able to have the slightest bit of influence in the system?
It's not as though they're not given the opportunity to become a state. They have voted in the past for things to stay as-is. If I recall, it was a pretty close vote, however.
from what I understand about it, which I am in no way a scholar on the area I am just going off what I remember from my grandfather who was a history teacher. In order for them to get statehood they essentially have to vote on it twice in favor in a row, because they need to vote on it to elect faux representatives to act on their behalf in washington, then on top of that they need to vote yes on it again a few years later during the actual status of the statehood. Currently they have done the first two steps, and are (unless it’s blocked) currently set up to vote on the status of their state this August.
I didn’t realize that statehood is a requirement for actual representation in Congress / the House and being able to participate in federal elections. I’ve just blithely assumed that they’d get some sort of representation regardless, and that everybody would have voting rights.
Pretty sure they can vote, technically. However only states have senators and congress critters, and the president is elected by the electoral college, which is based on house and senate representatives
Hah that’s true. What would be their equivalent of the Boston Tea Party today? Dump all the Viagra they’ve manufactured in the sea? “Puerto Rico Viagra Party” sounds like a porn title
Some of them would have to start paying income taxes, which kind of defeats the only point of living in a US Territory that can be annihilated by a bad hurricane season.
They’re a part of the country, in that they are citizens and pay taxes. They don’t have representation in Congress (they send delegates, but those people can’t vote on anything) and they aren’t represented in the electoral college.
Fun fact, citizens of Washington DC are similarly unrepresented in Congress, but they do get to vote for President.
I’ve never really understood why DC folks don’t get a vote, but at least I knew about that one (it gets mentioned in movies and series from time to time)
DC is a small area entirelt under the ruling of the federal government, and because the government is made up of representatives from states they do not get a vote. The original idea was congress and the federal government shouldn’t be housed under any state laws.
But I’d assume there’s other folks in DC besides just congresscritters? It just feels weird that you disenfranchise (whew what a word to spell) people when they are state representatives or they happen to live in the place where the congresscritters do their thing.
I think in general disenfranchising people feels weird to me; I’m Finnish and I’m so used to the idea that literally everybody has a vote no matter what – here all citizens who are over 18 get a vote, whether in parliamentary, presidental, or municipal elections, and the only way to lose your right to vote is to renounce your citizenship. Doesn’t matter whether you’re an ax murderer or a member of parliament (hopefully not both at the same time though.)
It didn’t matter when DC was 99% swamp, but it’s more of a problem now. My thinking is the people living in DC chose to live there, it’s a very rich area and anyone living in DC has the means to live outside. They knew they wouldn’t have a congressional vote. Also, DC still has municipal elections.
DC doesn’t get its own separate representative because every congressperson has a vested interest in representing it (since they all live there half the time). The arrangement was specifically designed to avoid giving DC too much power.
Consequently, while all Puerto Rico residents pay federal taxes, many residents are not required to pay federal income taxes. Aside from income tax, U.S. federal taxes include customs taxes,[1] federal commodity taxes, and federal payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment taxes).
This just fucks over the people of Maine. Call me when first past the post is eliminated or Citizens United is repealed. Until then the US is a pseudodemocracy.
It doesn’t fuck over the people of Maine. The pact only goes into effect once a controlling majority of electoral votes are pledged to the plan. Once that happens, the electoral college is functionally eliminated, and the President will only ever be the winner of the popular vote.
Technically the electoral college isn’t eliminated, it just makes it so the votes go the the winner of the popular vote and not the gerrymandering. This would put every state on an equal footing and no more red state/blue state nonsense. People disillusioned by the current system can begin to feel like their vote “actually counts”, and maybe drive more people to actually participate in elections “where every vote counts”.
EDIT - Sorry themeatbridge, we are saying the same thing. I read your reply quick and thought you stated it was eliminated, not just functionally eliminated which is a big distinction that would require a lot more effort.
On Wednesday, Maine’s legislature passed a bill joining a compact to commit all of their electoral votes, regardless of who won in their individual state, to whichever candidate won the national popular vote.
Add comment