|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On April 20 2026 22:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:It looks like Trump's negotiation skills have gotten even worse, as now Iran isn't even interested in negotiating anymore (for now?), and the United States continues to attack Iran and look like the bad guy: Show nested quote +The Iran regime said Monday that it has no plans to attend peace talks in Pakistan with President Trump's top three negotiators, including Vice President JD Vance, as Tehran balks at what it considers "unreasonable and unrealistic demands" by the White House.
The standoff over the Strait of Hormuz intensified over the weekend as U.S. forces fired on and then seized an Iranian vessel, and with Tehran refusing to accept diplomacy amid the ongoing blockade of its ports and exports.
With no clear path to a diplomatic resolution of the seven-week war and the U.S.-Iran ceasefire set to expire on Tuesday evening in the U.S., uncertainty over when the strait might reopen is pushing global oil prices back up and weighing on U.S. stock futures. https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-war-trump-strait-of-hormuz-touska-ship-seized-peace-talks-uncertainty/
Did he ever have them? Art of the Deal Baby!
It strikes me he’s always been well, pretty terrible at it unless he’s holding all the good cards. Or to reference StarCraft, odd on these forums I know, if his faction isn’t blatantly OP he can’t post results.
Trump’s got no worse at negotiating, he’s just thrown himself into more scenarios where this is exposed.
Unless he’s bringing a gun to a knife fight he basically always loses, what separates him from others is they know they won with the gun, he genuinely seems to consider it as evidence that he’s great at negotiating
|
On April 20 2026 22:17 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 18 2026 06:22 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:Biden was focused on appearances, on avoiding the perception that the DoJ is used as a political instrument. And of course he was still vehemently accused of doing exactly that despite getting 0 accountability done. He initially thought Trumpism is dead after Jan 6 and that his role is merely to heal the image of the US and its institutions from a freak accident. He was wrong not just in hindsight because it resulted in Trump 2, he was wrong in principle. You can't shove this under the carpet and cross your fingers it doesn't happen again, you encourage it to happen again if there are no consequences for any of it and the holes that were exploited aren't plugged. Do you have any sources for this being Biden's and/or Garland's mentality, or are you just assuming because of popular opinion? Because I recall Biden referring to Trump as an extreme danger to democracy on several occasions. Brother, the republic had just survived by the skin of its teeth. The entire interview process for attorney general should have been about how to prevent this from ever happening again. He did vow to do that at his confirmation hearing. "“If confirmed,” Garland said, ‘I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on 6 January – a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.”" SourceHere's one source citing "wariness about appearing partisan" as a reason for why it took so long to even look into Trump's direction: Just saying it was "slow pace" doesn't mean anything without more details. That could mean anything between "they didn't cut corners" and "they were willfully slow-walking it". Here's another source about the effect of public testimonies in front of Jan 6 committe basically forcing the DoJ to stop hiding from the T-word:
But you don't need any of this because we know what happened. We know they went after the redneck grunts and shamans while Trump was chilling. Ignoring quite a few high profile figures that were charged. Also, starting from the bottom and having them roll the higher figures is standard procedure. They did run out of time, Trump himself said that if he wouldn't have won the election his life would have been screwed due to the prosecutions (paraphrasing). That doesn't mean he would face prison time for all 91 felony indictments. He was already guilty of fraud in NY, but the federal cases were dead in the water. Jack Smith released a report saying they had enough evidence for a conviction even in the updated indictments after the SCOTUS rule for the election case. IF it made it to the jury, but SCOTUS already made it clear they were going to quash that if given the opportunity. I want to remind you how shit the six conservatives majority are. The 14th Amendment says: "No person shall be [...] President [...] or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, [...] as an officer of the United States, [...] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." SCOTUS interpreted that as "Congress can vote to remove someone from the ballot under 14th Amendment grounds," which would sound like a borderline illiterate interpretation if not for the fact that it was so obviously partisan. They already rescued Trump by saying the POTUS is immune to prosecution for virtually everything imaginable, you don't think they'd also sink other federal indictments? I guess it's comforting to think "we have fascist rulers because the liberal elite fumbled the ball once and it can be easily avoided in the future if we just don't make the exact same mistake" instead of "half the world genuinely wants fascism and thinks it's a great idea," but real life is the latter.
That's a false dichotomy, we have fascist rulers both because fascists (and gullible people) think they're great and because non-fascists have not done and are not doing enough to disincentivize it and hold it to account. The result would have been the same anyway is a poor excuse for not giving it everything.
Choosing to prioritize appearances and short term stability and standard procedure and memos and long-standing policies in uniquely batshit and non-standard circumstances is not working very well. And this doesn't just happen in regards to fascism, we're plagued by short term myopia in general, and the frustrating part is that prioritzing medium and long term goals usually just means doing the right thing. Holding the most powerful to the highest standards is the right fucking thing, and we keep failing to do that and get surprised by the obvious results of not doing it.
|
On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact.
And how exactly would that work?
|
United States44113 Posts
On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work?
Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state.
|
On April 20 2026 06:20 Simberto wrote:
Also Schrödingers ships on Schrödingers strait. They are alive and dead simultaneously, until you look at them to see which is true.
I've never seen anything like this. Every week victory is announced, the strait is open forever and Iran's nuclear program is over, 1-2 days later we're back to square one. Bizarrely, every single "win" is just as much of cathartic celebration and ultimate vindication as the previous one. There's no object permanence, no time continuity even. The past was always an obvious and necessary strategic lie in order to achieve the current victory which is the real one I promise. Until next time.
|
On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state.
I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote.
|
On April 20 2026 18:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:On April 20 2026 03:45 WombaT wrote:On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling  . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters. Which wasn’t your initial point. Your initial point was to compare two completely different things to try and make an own the libs gotcha. Don’t bullshit me, you’ve got more earnest responses than merited based on that initial gambit as it was. Do better. Or don’t, no skin off my back either way They are both about potentially disenfranchising voters? On April 19 2026 16:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters. 1. How do you think a popular vote disenfranchises voters? (I hope you don't think your "point is as follows" is your explanation of this, because a national popular vote necessarily wouldn't have the problem you're describing for an individual state, since there wouldn't be state electoral votes to allocate. The millions of individual votes would all count equally, regardless of what state they're from. Even conservatives in California and liberals in Texas would have votes that matter; national elections wouldn't only be decided by swing states. Red states are the ones preventing this equality, by not wanting to lose their unfair advantage from the electoral college, which is why they don't want a popular vote.) 2. Do you think both the electoral college and the popular vote are approximately equal in their levels of disenfranchisement of voters, or do you think one method is significantly worse/better in terms of how votes are assessed? On April 19 2026 18:12 KwarK wrote:
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise. Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation. As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. entire states are already being disenfranchised. There are what, 7? states that actually decide the election.
Every state, plus DC, decides the election. If Biden lost California, he lost the election.
On April 20 2026 18:08 Gorsameth wrote:
49 states are winner takes all. up to 49.5% x 49 voters get disenfranchised.
?
As opposed to a popular vote system, where if 50.5% of people vote for the winner and 49.5% of people vote for the loser, the 49.5% are not equally disenfranchised? The winner took all and became president. He didn't get 50.5% of the presidency and the other guy presidency 49.5% of the time.
On April 20 2026 18:08 Gorsameth wrote:
More people voted for Hillary then Trump, yet Trump won. "Well that is because its the EC that matters, not votes" and your right. But if your so concerned about disenfranchising with the NPVIC then boy, you should look at the EC itself.
Every time you draw lines on a map, you are "disenfranchising" by the logic of pure democracy. Someone who lives in West Virginia near the border of Virginia and votes for Democratic senators is not disenfranchised just because the winners are not who they picked but they winners might be who they picked if the border of Virginia was different and they were within it. The point of the "Republic" is there is a separate value in that state, whatever it is, being represented as such. The people who live there being represented as such. That the people who live there voting for a representative has value over the pure national voting results, which only The Netherlands goes by (this of course goes beyond the discussion of president because it takes realizing that the system is all justified the same way).
Any logic that weighs "enfranchisement" or "disenfranchisement" on the results of elections before they happen is mistaking game theory for voting rights. "Disenfranchisement" has to mean something other than you didn't get the result you wanted. We can count votes. We cannot guarantee before every election that it would equally not matter which people hypothetically stayed home or showed up.
|
On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work?
Razyda said that states are people, he forgot that Trump won the last popular vote, and he claimed that a fairer system must be rigged if it leads to more Democratic wins than Republican ones. He has no idea what he's talking about. It was weird for him to bring up the NPVIC in the first place, given that he clearly hadn't looked it up before posting.
|
equality and meritocracy are simply too dangerous for traditionally priviledged people.
|
On April 21 2026 01:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2026 18:08 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:On April 20 2026 03:45 WombaT wrote:On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
States notably aren’t people last I checked
I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself.
But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters. Which wasn’t your initial point. Your initial point was to compare two completely different things to try and make an own the libs gotcha. Don’t bullshit me, you’ve got more earnest responses than merited based on that initial gambit as it was. Do better. Or don’t, no skin off my back either way They are both about potentially disenfranchising voters? On April 19 2026 16:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
States notably aren’t people last I checked
I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself.
But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters. 1. How do you think a popular vote disenfranchises voters? (I hope you don't think your "point is as follows" is your explanation of this, because a national popular vote necessarily wouldn't have the problem you're describing for an individual state, since there wouldn't be state electoral votes to allocate. The millions of individual votes would all count equally, regardless of what state they're from. Even conservatives in California and liberals in Texas would have votes that matter; national elections wouldn't only be decided by swing states. Red states are the ones preventing this equality, by not wanting to lose their unfair advantage from the electoral college, which is why they don't want a popular vote.) 2. Do you think both the electoral college and the popular vote are approximately equal in their levels of disenfranchisement of voters, or do you think one method is significantly worse/better in terms of how votes are assessed? On April 19 2026 18:12 KwarK wrote:
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise. Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation. As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. entire states are already being disenfranchised. There are what, 7? states that actually decide the election. Every state, plus DC, decides the election. If Biden lost California, he lost the election. Show nested quote +On April 20 2026 18:08 Gorsameth wrote:
49 states are winner takes all. up to 49.5% x 49 voters get disenfranchised. ? As opposed to a popular vote system, where if 50.5% of people vote for the winner and 49.5% of people vote for the loser, the 49.5% are not equally disenfranchised? The winner took all and became president. He didn't get 50.5% of the presidency and the other guy presidency 49.5% of the time. Show nested quote +On April 20 2026 18:08 Gorsameth wrote:
More people voted for Hillary then Trump, yet Trump won. "Well that is because its the EC that matters, not votes" and your right. But if your so concerned about disenfranchising with the NPVIC then boy, you should look at the EC itself. Every time you draw lines on a map, you are "disenfranchising" by the logic of pure democracy. Someone who lives in West Virginia near the border of Virginia and votes for Democratic senators is not disenfranchised just because the winners are not who they picked but they winners might be who they picked if the border of Virginia was different and they were within it. The point of the "Republic" is there is a separate value in that state, whatever it is, being represented as such. The people who live there being represented as such. That the people who live there voting for a representative has value over the pure national voting results, which only The Netherlands goes by (this of course goes beyond the discussion of president because it takes realizing that the system is all justified the same way). Any logic that weighs "enfranchisement" or "disenfranchisement" on the results of elections before they happen is mistaking game theory for voting rights. "Disenfranchisement" has to mean something other than you didn't get the result you wanted. We can count votes. We cannot guarantee before every election that it would equally not matter which people hypothetically stayed home or showed up. not my argument, im just pointing out razydas argument is bad using the same language he uses.
|
Fun fact about the electoral college, someone did that math for the 2012 Presidential election and concluded you could hypothetically win 82% of the popular vote and still lose the election, i.e. the winner just needs 17.56%. The number for the 2024 election would be only slightly different.
|
It’s so crazy how little credibility the president of the USA has right now. Trump just announced that it is highly unlikely that the ceasefire will be extended. My initial reaction was, oh then for sure the ceasefire will be extended. But then as I thought about it more I came to the conclusion that his statement tells us nothing because it is just as likely it will or won’t be and his statement is meaningless. Hell there could even be a third option.
How wild is it that the US president making official statements are absolutely worthless in predicting what happens.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On April 21 2026 02:25 Billyboy wrote:
It’s so crazy how little credibility the president of the USA has right now. Trump just announced that it is highly unlikely that the ceasefire will be extended. My initial reaction was, oh then for sure the ceasefire will be extended. But then as I thought about it more I came to the conclusion that his statement tells us nothing because it is just as likely it will or won’t be and his statement is meaningless. Hell there could even be a third option.
How wild is it that the US president making official statements are absolutely worthless in predicting what happens.
It’s 4D chess bro you just understand
Being serious I really don’t recall much similar going on in the past. Reliable or predictably shitty are things I’m quite familiar with, would rather not be of course.
This lot I don’t know what the intended plan even is, nor what pronouncements reflect intent or their perception of the scenario, and what is a dissemination of bullshit.
It’s like trying to guess what the magic 8 ball is going to say next or something, there’s no real discernible pattern that one can actually predict what’s next, or even parse the present, it’s a complete and utter shambles.
I mean it’s confusing enough looking on from the sidelines, god fucking only knows how other states actually make policy decisions against sands that can seemingly shift at any time, for basically any reason
|
United States44113 Posts
Updated the Iran megapost. One curious thing is how heavily he has been flaming every prior President for not attacking Iran which he insists he has believed to be necessary for 47 years.
|
On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote.
Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it.
As for how it would work:
"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state."
|
United States44113 Posts
On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state."
So the number of wasted votes would be fewer. Why are you against that? Why are you trying to disenfranchise so many people?
|
On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state."
From my shitty understanding, NPVIC doesn't do anything until a majority of states have entered the compact. In that case, say... California and Alabama are outside of the compact but still voting - blue voters in Alabama now matter (assuming Alabama is always red) and red voters in California now matter (assuming California is always blue). Both red and blue voters in those states matter, which logically disenfranchises fewer voters than the current system where blue votes in forever-red states don't matter, and vice versa.
Do we have a different understanding?
|
On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state."
No, most people understand what you're saying. It's just stupid.
You're worried about people being disenfranchised from the Electoral College. Sure, they are. In return, they get franchised in the presidential popular vote where every single vote matters. The Electoral College is just a middle man, it serves no other purpose.
Most people would say that giving everyone an equal vote in the presidential election is a lot more important than giving them a vote towards a middle-man whose only purpose is to pick the president. So why not just cut out the middle man? The NPVIC is a workaround to effectively remove that middle-man.
|
On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state."
You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority.
On April 21 2026 04:19 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." No, most people understand what you're saying. It's just stupid. You're worried about people being disenfranchised from the Electoral College. Sure, they are. In return, they get franchised in the presidential popular vote where every single vote matters. The Electoral College is just a middle man, it serves no other purpose.Most people would say that giving everyone an equal vote in the presidential election is a lot more important than giving them a vote towards a middle-man whose only purpose is to pick the president. So why not just cut out the middle man? The NPVIC is a workaround to effectively remove that middle-man.
Actually, the electoral college as envisaged by the Founding Fathers (aside from being a logistical necessity at the time) was meant to be a buffer preventing dangerous demagogues from being elected by the masses. Ironic. ;-)
|
On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority.
Right. Losing the election fair and square doesn't mean that those losing voters were necessarily "disenfranchised" from voting or that their votes counted less in the final tally, just like how oBlade recently made a similar terrible argument when he cited a hypothetical 50.5% vs. 49.5% outcome in a popular vote and insisted the 49.5% are disenfranchised. Nope. Every vote would be worth an equal amount when the results are counted.
This is normal for conservative mindsets though: when they win, there are no issues; when they lose, it's surely due to disenfranchisement and fraud and cheating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
