|
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 |
On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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.
Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables.
From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break.
|
On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break.
Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination.
|
On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination.
Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place.
It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble.
|
Northern Ireland27459 Posts
On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break.
And get annoyed that folks no longer believe them, even those who may have at some other juncture. There is a good reason for that.
It feels to me we’ve somewhat shifted from somewhat (at times) irreconcilable but earnestly held worldviews conflicting, to a more ruthless zero sum approach where power is all that matters and a whole load of bad faith comes with that territory.
Where prior I’d mostly just disagree with conservatives, maybe align occasionally, now I just don’t believe them that they ostensibly care about x principle or whatever.
Which is obviously unfair of me I’m sure some will claim, I’m not really sure how I’m meant to feel another way though
|
Northern Ireland27459 Posts
On April 21 2026 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination. Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place. It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble.
Yeah it is patently ridiculous to consider the politics of a place through the prism of how it actually functions
Why would anyone ever do that?
|
On April 21 2026 07:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination. Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place. It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble. Yeah it is patently ridiculous to consider the politics of a place through the prism of how it actually functions Why would anyone ever do that?
You say that sarcastically, but it's literally the argument I'm making about a leverage based theory of change (supported by the historical evidence) and an "elections/party" based theory of change that is basically a recent product of the political equivalent of a "diamonds are forever" propaganda campaign.
|
On April 21 2026 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 07:41 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination. Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place. It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble. Yeah it is patently ridiculous to consider the politics of a place through the prism of how it actually functions Why would anyone ever do that? You say that sarcastically, but it's literally the argument I'm making about a leverage based theory of change (supported by the historical evidence) and an "elections/party" based theory of change that is basically a recent product of the political equivalent of a "diamonds are forever" propaganda campaign.
With "recent" you mean since the founding of your country, right? Because there have been a bunch of changes to your constitution, but not much at all has changed about how Congress or the president are chosen.
The fact that the parties aren't stable and are, instead, descriptive of the main voting blocks in the country is, if anything, an argument against your thesis: burning down the apparatus and starting again will most likely lead to something within the currently achievable political spectrum, and not something wildly new, and the USA has probably not been further away from a communist revolution than it is right now, maybe ever.
Finally I understand you are piggybacking on the point about the political parties working for the elite and always having done so, in a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kinda way. That's partially true but there is clearly a meaningful difference in ideologies between the parties. Maybe your ideology isn't reflected and everything east of social democracies is "basically fascism" in your book, but that's about as meaningful as a colourblind person claiming green is the same as red, because they can't see the difference anyway. Would I rather have less corporatism and lobbying? Hell yes. Does that mean all corporations are the same? Obviously not, and the choice between the parties isn't meaningless because they are both beholden to large donors. Lists like these make it quite clear what the lesser evil is: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors
Are elections going to solve it all? Almost certainly not. But that doesn't make them meaningless.
|
On April 21 2026 08:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:41 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
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. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination. Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place. It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble. Yeah it is patently ridiculous to consider the politics of a place through the prism of how it actually functions Why would anyone ever do that? You say that sarcastically, but it's literally the argument I'm making about a leverage based theory of change (supported by the historical evidence) and an "elections/party" based theory of change that is basically a recent product of the political equivalent of a "diamonds are forever" propaganda campaign. With "recent" you mean since the founding of your country, + Show Spoiler + right? Because there have been a bunch of changes to your constitution, but not much at all has changed about how Congress or the president are chosen. The fact that the parties aren't stable and are, instead, descriptive of the main voting blocks in the country is, if anything, an argument against your thesis: burning down the apparatus and starting again will most likely lead to something within the currently achievable political spectrum, and not something wildly new, and the USA has probably not been further away from a communist revolution than it is right now, maybe ever. Finally I understand you are piggybacking on the point about the political parties working for the elite and always having done so, in a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kinda way. That's partially true but there is clearly a meaningful difference in ideologies between the parties. Maybe your ideology isn't reflected and everything east of social democracies is "basically fascism" in your book, but that's about as meaningful as a colourblind person claiming green is the same as red, because they can't see the difference anyway. Would I rather have less corporatism and lobbying? Hell yes. Does that mean all corporations are the same? Obviously not, and the choice between the parties isn't meaningless because they are both beholden to large donors. Lists like these make it quite clear what the lesser evil is: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donorsAre elections going to solve it all? Almost certainly not. But that doesn't make them meaningless.
No, I'm talking about the distinct shift in how people understood politics in the US that came after the civil rights movement. I previously described it this way:
Doesn't matter what you want politically really, what you need to get it is leverage. Small d democratic majorities and elections are one aspect of how you get that leverage, but historically, they typically come at the end after the work on the ground has made the status quo less tolerable than giving in to at least some of the demands.
Since the Civil Rights Movement, the pitch was "Hey women and Black people! We're (mostly) letting you vote now! Isn't that great! This is how you are to make any changes politically now! No more of that silly mass disruption stuff until demands are met! You can have big fun protests, just make sure to keep them symbolic"
We got mass incarceration (with legal slavery), women lost bodily autonomy, the surveillance state is out of control, Nixon's EPA is being dismantled, and the list goes on.
The idea that lining up behind Democrats after they finally parted ways with their most virulent racists in the 60's as part of a democratic political block to accomplish the things the poor people's campaign was aiming at before the US government conspired to subvert the campaign and assassinate MLK jr. for it looking too promising has categorically failed.
Any and all progress that can be said to have been gained since then must be recognized as happening despite the Democrat party, not because of it.
That said, I agree with your belief that elections won't solve it all and aren't meaningless.
|
On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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.
Not my point at all.
|
On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination.
That is precisely why I phrased it like that. There's a simple test one can use. Ask them which party had an abolitionist platform in the Civil War era and which party's supporters wave the Confederate flag now.
On April 21 2026 07:32 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. And get annoyed that folks no longer believe them, even those who may have at some other juncture. There is a good reason for that. It feels to me we’ve somewhat shifted from somewhat (at times) irreconcilable but earnestly held worldviews conflicting, to a more ruthless zero sum approach where power is all that matters and a whole load of bad faith comes with that territory. Where prior I’d mostly just disagree with conservatives, maybe align occasionally, now I just don’t believe them that they ostensibly care about x principle or whatever. Which is obviously unfair of me I’m sure some will claim, I’m not really sure how I’m meant to feel another way though
They're the same people who claim to be against voter fraud and vote for the guy who tried to rig an election through fraud...
|
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. Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 04:19 RenSC2 wrote: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. ;-)
How do you even post the bolded in the same paragraph? In your very example people of Alabama get disenfrinchised.
It is not even that they votes dont count, they go towards exact opposite what they were voting for.
|
Northern Ireland27459 Posts
On April 21 2026 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 08:50 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2026 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:41 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
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. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination. Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place. It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble. Yeah it is patently ridiculous to consider the politics of a place through the prism of how it actually functions Why would anyone ever do that? You say that sarcastically, but it's literally the argument I'm making about a leverage based theory of change (supported by the historical evidence) and an "elections/party" based theory of change that is basically a recent product of the political equivalent of a "diamonds are forever" propaganda campaign. With "recent" you mean since the founding of your country, + Show Spoiler + right? Because there have been a bunch of changes to your constitution, but not much at all has changed about how Congress or the president are chosen. The fact that the parties aren't stable and are, instead, descriptive of the main voting blocks in the country is, if anything, an argument against your thesis: burning down the apparatus and starting again will most likely lead to something within the currently achievable political spectrum, and not something wildly new, and the USA has probably not been further away from a communist revolution than it is right now, maybe ever. Finally I understand you are piggybacking on the point about the political parties working for the elite and always having done so, in a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kinda way. That's partially true but there is clearly a meaningful difference in ideologies between the parties. Maybe your ideology isn't reflected and everything east of social democracies is "basically fascism" in your book, but that's about as meaningful as a colourblind person claiming green is the same as red, because they can't see the difference anyway. Would I rather have less corporatism and lobbying? Hell yes. Does that mean all corporations are the same? Obviously not, and the choice between the parties isn't meaningless because they are both beholden to large donors. Lists like these make it quite clear what the lesser evil is: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donorsAre elections going to solve it all? Almost certainly not. But that doesn't make them meaningless. No, I'm talking about the distinct shift in how people understood politics in the US that came after the civil rights movement. I previously described it this way: Show nested quote +Doesn't matter what you want politically really, what you need to get it is leverage. Small d democratic majorities and elections are one aspect of how you get that leverage, but historically, they typically come at the end after the work on the ground has made the status quo less tolerable than giving in to at least some of the demands.
Since the Civil Rights Movement, the pitch was "Hey women and Black people! We're (mostly) letting you vote now! Isn't that great! This is how you are to make any changes politically now! No more of that silly mass disruption stuff until demands are met! You can have big fun protests, just make sure to keep them symbolic"
We got mass incarceration (with legal slavery), women lost bodily autonomy, the surveillance state is out of control, Nixon's EPA is being dismantled, and the list goes on.
The idea that lining up behind Democrats after they finally parted ways with their most virulent racists in the 60's as part of a democratic political block to accomplish the things the poor people's campaign was aiming at before the US government conspired to subvert the campaign and assassinate MLK jr. for it looking too promising has categorically failed.
Any and all progress that can be said to have been gained since then must be recognized as happening despite the Democrat party, not because of it. That said, I agree with your belief that elections won't solve it all and aren't meaningless.
The thing is, being enfranchised into the voting process and things like legalistic rights is a huge driver of quite a few of those kind of movements in the first place.
You’re almost framing it as some carrot dangled to placate these movements, rather than it being a key demand that’s being met. And they tend to dissipate when momentum stalls as the kinda main goals that glue the broad coalition together, and we get into various stretch goals that are more niche.
Or to put it another way, a big driver of mass disruptive/revolutionary movements often isn’t to overturn a system, merely to be enfranchised within it. Plenty are more structurally transformative too of course but I think broadly in either instance you’ve got a handful of quite clear grievances that are sufficiently shared for some kind of critical mass of people to garner enough momentum to move the needle.
Not to downplay the importance of such movements, my position is rather the opposite. I just don’t see the appetite from Americans for radical transformation, nor am I sure what the ‘civil rights issue of our time’ is that could rally sufficient people to that banner.
|
Northern Ireland27459 Posts
On April 21 2026 17:34 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. On April 21 2026 04:19 RenSC2 wrote: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. ;-) How do you even post the bolded in the same paragraph? In your very example people of Alabama get disenfrinchised. It is not even that they votes dont count, they go towards exact opposite what they were voting for.
Which is exactly what happens in every voting constituency in the UK if you cast your vote for a losing candidate
|
On April 21 2026 18:46 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 17:34 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. On April 21 2026 04:19 RenSC2 wrote: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. ;-) How do you even post the bolded in the same paragraph? In your very example people of Alabama get disenfrinchised. It is not even that they votes dont count, they go towards exact opposite what they were voting for. Which is exactly what happens in every voting constituency in the UK if you cast your vote for a losing candidate
You got it other way around. UK comparison doesnt really work due to different government structure, although it may be good example why this is actually wrong.
It would go like that: Constituency votes for Labour candidate, but Conservatives won popular vote, so Conservative candidate gets elected.
|
On April 21 2026 18:44 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 08:50 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2026 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:41 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
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. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination. Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place. It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble. Yeah it is patently ridiculous to consider the politics of a place through the prism of how it actually functions Why would anyone ever do that? You say that sarcastically, but it's literally the argument I'm making about a leverage based theory of change (supported by the historical evidence) and an "elections/party" based theory of change that is basically a recent product of the political equivalent of a "diamonds are forever" propaganda campaign. With "recent" you mean since the founding of your country, + Show Spoiler + right? Because there have been a bunch of changes to your constitution, but not much at all has changed about how Congress or the president are chosen. The fact that the parties aren't stable and are, instead, descriptive of the main voting blocks in the country is, if anything, an argument against your thesis: burning down the apparatus and starting again will most likely lead to something within the currently achievable political spectrum, and not something wildly new, and the USA has probably not been further away from a communist revolution than it is right now, maybe ever. Finally I understand you are piggybacking on the point about the political parties working for the elite and always having done so, in a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kinda way. That's partially true but there is clearly a meaningful difference in ideologies between the parties. Maybe your ideology isn't reflected and everything east of social democracies is "basically fascism" in your book, but that's about as meaningful as a colourblind person claiming green is the same as red, because they can't see the difference anyway. Would I rather have less corporatism and lobbying? Hell yes. Does that mean all corporations are the same? Obviously not, and the choice between the parties isn't meaningless because they are both beholden to large donors. Lists like these make it quite clear what the lesser evil is: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donorsAre elections going to solve it all? Almost certainly not. But that doesn't make them meaningless. No, I'm talking about the distinct shift in how people understood politics in the US that came after the civil rights movement. I previously described it this way: Doesn't matter what you want politically really, what you need to get it is leverage. Small d democratic majorities and elections are one aspect of how you get that leverage, but historically, they typically come at the end after the work on the ground has made the status quo less tolerable than giving in to at least some of the demands.
Since the Civil Rights Movement, the pitch was "Hey women and Black people! We're (mostly) letting you vote now! Isn't that great! This is how you are to make any changes politically now! No more of that silly mass disruption stuff until demands are met! You can have big fun protests, just make sure to keep them symbolic"
We got mass incarceration (with legal slavery), women lost bodily autonomy, the surveillance state is out of control, Nixon's EPA is being dismantled, and the list goes on.
The idea that lining up behind Democrats after they finally parted ways with their most virulent racists in the 60's as part of a democratic political block to accomplish the things the poor people's campaign was aiming at before the US government conspired to subvert the campaign and assassinate MLK jr. for it looking too promising has categorically failed.
Any and all progress that can be said to have been gained since then must be recognized as happening despite the Democrat party, not because of it. That said, I agree with your belief that elections won't solve it all and aren't meaningless. The thing is, being enfranchised into the voting process and things like legalistic rights is a huge driver of quite a few of those kind of movements in the first place. You’re almost framing it as some carrot dangled to placate these movements, rather than it being a key demand that’s being met. + Show Spoiler +And they tend to dissipate when momentum stalls as the kinda main goals that glue the broad coalition together, and we get into various stretch goals that are more niche.
Or to put it another way, a big driver of mass disruptive/revolutionary movements often isn’t to overturn a system, merely to be enfranchised within it. Plenty are more structurally transformative too of course but I think broadly in either instance you’ve got a handful of quite clear grievances that are sufficiently shared for some kind of critical mass of people to garner enough momentum to move the needle.
Not to downplay the importance of such movements, my position is rather the opposite. I just don’t see the appetite from Americans for radical transformation, nor am I sure what the ‘civil rights issue of our time’ is that could rally sufficient people to that banner.
Sort of?
Those aren't mutually exclusive. I'm pretty familiar with the history, so you know you're not bringing new information to my attention.
What exactly in the quoted post are you trying to dispute?
|
On April 21 2026 18:46 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 17:34 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. On April 21 2026 04:19 RenSC2 wrote: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. ;-) How do you even post the bolded in the same paragraph? In your very example people of Alabama get disenfrinchised. It is not even that they votes dont count, they go towards exact opposite what they were voting for. Which is exactly what happens in every voting constituency in the UK if you cast your vote for a losing candidate
In the US, you cast your vote for electors from your state for a candidate for president. That's the process and that's literally what it says on the ballot. If voters in the state of Louisiana voted 70/30 Trump/Clinton, and the state of Louisiana looked at the result of other elections like a bunch of people in California and New York voting for Clinton and says they add up to more than the results of even other elections and says you know how electors for Trump won 70%, we're undoing that - that's insane and that's the problem with the popular vote compact.
Louisiana 70/30 Trump/Clinton -> electors go to Trump -> Clinton voters not disenfranchised, just lost
Louisiana 70/30 Trump/Clinton -> electors go to Clinton -> Trump voters "disenfranchised" for lack of a better word, not mine
The idea that the state legislature of say Pennsylvania can decide to give its state's electoral votes to whoever the "popular vote winner" is (remembering there is no nationally counted and certified popular vote to begin with), is constitutionally no different than the state legislature of Alabama passing a law that its electoral votes go to the Republican period.
That would be an assortment of states sidestepping the Constitution and the amendment process.
Almost no country in Europe directly elects an executive to begin with so criticisms of US being behind on muh democracy fairness are moot.
|
On April 21 2026 20:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 18:46 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 17:34 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. On April 21 2026 04:19 RenSC2 wrote: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. ;-) How do you even post the bolded in the same paragraph? In your very example people of Alabama get disenfrinchised. It is not even that they votes dont count, they go towards exact opposite what they were voting for. Which is exactly what happens in every voting constituency in the UK if you cast your vote for a losing candidate In the US, you cast your vote for electors from your state for a candidate for president. That's the process and that's literally what it says on the ballot. If voters in the state of Louisiana voted 70/30 Trump/Clinton, and the state of Louisiana looked at the result of other elections like a bunch of people in California and New York voting for Clinton and says they add up to more than the results of even other elections and says you know how electors for Trump won 70%, we're undoing that - that's insane and that's the problem with the popular vote compact. Louisiana 70/30 Trump/Clinton -> electors go to Trump -> Clinton voters not disenfranchised, just lost Louisiana 70/30 Trump/Clinton -> electors go to Clinton -> Trump voters "disenfranchised" for lack of a better word, not mine The idea that the state legislature of say Pennsylvania can decide to give its state's electoral votes to whoever the "popular vote winner" is (remembering there is no nationally counted and certified popular vote to begin with), is constitutionally no different than the state legislature of Alabama passing a law that its electoral votes go to the Republican period. That would be an assortment of states sidestepping the Constitution and the amendment process. Almost no country in Europe directly elects an executive to begin with so criticisms of US being behind on muh democracy fairness are moot.
"Almost no country", except almost all the non-monarchies (I want to just say all except Germany and Italy, but I might be missing some). Your main point is probably that the president in most European countries has far less power than in the US, but France is a pretty strong counterexample.
Regarding the point of whether the NPVIC disenfranchises voters in Alabama or not will greatly depend on whether the Alabaman electorate agrees with you: they arey electing their state electors, or whether they agree with the NPVIC: they are electing the president. If the people of Alabama think they are electing their state electors to make the decision on their behalf, then they will indeed be disenfranchised when the electors' choice is determined not only by the people of Alabama, but also by the rest of the country. If, however, they believe they are electing the president, then with the functioning of the NPVIC, the votes of people in Alabama count exactly as much under the NPVIC as the votes of people in California, so they have no reason to be disenfranchised. In fact, if anything, the Democratic voters of Alabama will feel empowered and invigorated, because their voice is now counted, whereas otherwise their voice is irrelevant due to the large Republican majority in Alabama. And the reverse happens in California, where, unlke the few hundred thousand voters that get ignored in Alabama, there's a few million Republican voters that don't ever really get a say (similar to the few million Democratic voters in Texas). Campaigning would also change, because instead of tailoring campaigns to the dozen or so purple states scattered mostly throughout the midwest, a viable option would be to campaign to get Democrat votes in Texas and Alabama or Republican votes in Oregon and New York.
The thing is that you need to change your thinking from "electoral college" to "despite the electoral college". But it's clear that the NPVIC is a kludge to bypass exactly that and implement "national popular vote" without amending the constitution. Whether that's constitutional? No clue. I suspect the bigger problem is whether it even works at all. There's a clear incentive for a lot of states to defect.
|
On April 21 2026 20:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 18:46 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 17:34 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. On April 21 2026 04:19 RenSC2 wrote: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. ;-) How do you even post the bolded in the same paragraph? In your very example people of Alabama get disenfrinchised. It is not even that they votes dont count, they go towards exact opposite what they were voting for. Which is exactly what happens in every voting constituency in the UK if you cast your vote for a losing candidate In the US, you cast your vote for electors from your state for a candidate for president. That's the process and that's literally what it says on the ballot. If voters in the state of Louisiana voted 70/30 Trump/Clinton, and the state of Louisiana looked at the result of other elections like a bunch of people in California and New York voting for Clinton and says they add up to more than the results of even other elections and says you know how electors for Trump won 70%, we're undoing that - that's insane and that's the problem with the popular vote compact. Louisiana 70/30 Trump/Clinton -> electors go to Trump -> Clinton voters not disenfranchised, just lost Louisiana 70/30 Trump/Clinton -> electors go to Clinton -> Trump voters "disenfranchised" for lack of a better word, not mine The idea that the state legislature of say Pennsylvania can decide to give its state's electoral votes to whoever the "popular vote winner" is (remembering there is no nationally counted and certified popular vote to begin with), is constitutionally no different than the state legislature of Alabama passing a law that its electoral votes go to the Republican period. That would be an assortment of states sidestepping the Constitution and the amendment process. Almost no country in Europe directly elects an executive to begin with so criticisms of US being behind on muh democracy fairness are moot.
Moreso there is miniscule chance for ultimate "congratulations, you played yourself" outcome (italic bit, in short AI discussion)
"What I am interested in is if it is possible that signatory states trap themselves in situation where only non signatory states vote and signatory states must assign their electors to majority vote of non signatory states only"
In theory, the scenario you're describing identifies a logical "trap" where signatory states would be forced to award their electors based only on the results from the non-signatory states that actually held valid elections.
The text of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) states that participating states must award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the "largest national popular vote total" across all 50 states and D.C.. If signatory states were legally barred from holding a popular vote but the compact remained in effect, they would effectively be bound to whatever the "national" total ended up being—even if that total consisted only of votes from the remaining states.
How the "Trap" Would Work
* The Data Source: The compact relies on "official statements" of vote totals from every state. If a court declared that signatory states could not hold a vote (arguing their electors are already "ceded"), the "national total" would simply be the sum of votes from the non-signatory states.
* Automatic Trigger: Because the compact is a legal contract, signatory states would be legally obligated to appoint their electors to the winner of that remaining "national" pool.
* Loss of Influence: In this scenario, signatory states would have zero influence over the outcome. They would be forced to assign their collective 270+ electoral votes to whoever the non-signatory states preferred.
The Legal Counter-Move
Most legal experts believe this "trap" would be short-lived because it would likely trigger the immediate nullification of the compact itself for several reasons:
* Failure of Purpose: A court would likely rule that the compact cannot function as intended if the majority of the population (the signatory states) is prevented from contributing to the total.
* Equal Protection Violations: Under the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot treat voters in an "arbitrary" way. Disenfranchising the entire population of 18+ signatory states while still using their electoral votes to confirm a president based on other states' choices would almost certainly be seen as a violation of the voters' rights.
* Legislative Intent: If the compact were forced to operate this way, many state legislatures would likely invoke their Article II plenary power to immediately repeal the compact or appoint electors directly, bypassing the "broken" national total.
In short: while your theory is logically sound based on the compact's text, it creates a constitutional crisis so severe that the Supreme Court would likely strike down the entire compact rather than allow 270+ electoral votes to be awarded by states that didn't even get to vote.
Cleaned it up a bit, for slightly easier read, full version in spoiler
+ Show Spoiler +In theory, the scenario you're describing identifies a logical "trap" where signatory states would be forced to award their electors based only on the results from the non-signatory states that actually held valid elections. [1]
The text of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) states that participating states must award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the "largest national popular vote total" across all 50 states and D.C.. If signatory states were legally barred from holding a popular vote but the compact remained in effect, they would effectively be bound to whatever the "national" total ended up being—even if that total consisted only of votes from the remaining states. [2, 3]
## How the "Trap" Would Work
* The Data Source: The compact relies on "official statements" of vote totals from every state. If a court declared that signatory states could not hold a vote (arguing their electors are already "ceded"), the "national total" would simply be the sum of votes from the non-signatory states.
* Automatic Trigger: Because the compact is a legal contract, signatory states would be legally obligated to appoint their electors to the winner of that remaining "national" pool.
* Loss of Influence: In this scenario, signatory states would have zero influence over the outcome. They would be forced to assign their collective 270+ electoral votes to whoever the non-signatory states preferred. [1, 2, 4, 5]
## The Legal Counter-Move
Most legal experts believe this "trap" would be short-lived because it would likely trigger the immediate nullification of the compact itself for several reasons:
* Failure of Purpose: A court would likely rule that the compact cannot function as intended if the majority of the population (the signatory states) is prevented from contributing to the total.
* Equal Protection Violations: Under the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot treat voters in an "arbitrary" way. Disenfranchising the entire population of 18+ signatory states while still using their electoral votes to confirm a president based on other states' choices would almost certainly be seen as a violation of the voters' rights.
* Legislative Intent: If the compact were forced to operate this way, many state legislatures would likely invoke their Article II plenary power to immediately repeal the compact or appoint electors directly, bypassing the "broken" national total. [2, 4, 6, 7]
In short: while your theory is logically sound based on the compact's text, it creates a constitutional crisis so severe that the Supreme Court would likely strike down the entire compact rather than allow 270+ electoral votes to be awarded by states that didn't even get to vote. [7]
[1] [https://www.thesun.co.uk](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/38827870/virginia-popular-vote-compact-presidential-election/)
[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)
[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=Taking%20the%20form%20of%20an%20interstate%20compact%2C,majority%20of%20votes%20in%20the%20Electoral%20College.)
[4] [https://www.brennancenter.org](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/national-popular-vote-explained)
[5] [https://en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=Taking%20the%20form%20of%20an%20interstate%20compact%2C,majority%20of%20votes%20in%20the%20Electoral%20College.)
[6] [https://en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)
[7] [https://www.brennancenter.org](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/national-popular-vote-explained)
|
United States44353 Posts
On April 21 2026 17:34 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote: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. On April 21 2026 04:19 RenSC2 wrote: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. ;-) How do you even post the bolded in the same paragraph? In your very example people of Alabama get disenfrinchised. It is not even that they votes dont count, they go towards exact opposite what they were voting for.
So you’re saying you want more people to be disenfranchised, as long as they don’t live in Alabama? Why are you so pro disenfranchisement?
|
What kind of brain damage is it where "everyone's vote counts" is disenfranchisement but democracy is "your vote only counts if it's not outnumbered inside these arbitrary geographic borders"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
