|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27456 Posts
On April 22 2026 03:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 03:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 03:04 Introvert wrote:
Tyranny of the minority is not the same as a bunch of veto points. Might as well call all checks and balances "tyranny of [a] minority." Majorities can still get their way they just have to work for it. And why on God's green earth the people supposedly "for the little guy" or worried about oppressed minorities are such big fans of pure democracy will never make sense. It's just a myopic view of rhe system both in the forward and backward direction. Wow, you wrote a full paragraph without saying anything of substance while managing to sound quite clever, albeit a bit snobby. You running for office? A) it's dumb to call anything not 50% + 1 a "tyranny of the minority." B) if you think the majority is oppressing you, you probably don't want them to vote on it directly.
A) I mean it is. Maybe there’s no actual tyranny as it were, but one could apply the same rationale to the tyranny of the majority.
B) No, probably not. I’d still rather be oppressed by the majority than the minority myself, provided said oppression is vaguely equivalent.
As I’ve said prior I think there are cases where it’s maybe sensible to eschew a pure popular vote. If you’ve a big ethnic or national identity divide for example.
Northern Ireland would be a clusterfuck if Brits/Irish could run our Assembly depending on who was the biggest party if we didn’t have corrective mechanisms
I don’t consider the US to be as fragmented, at least in that sense.
|
On April 22 2026 03:23 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2026 01:10 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 20:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 18:44 WombaT wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Your previous narrative almost presents these approaches as parallel if not directly oppositional. I may be misunderstanding you on certain points, fair enough that may be on me. + Show Spoiler +I assume we agree that public sentiment and electoral politics don’t enjoy a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, the leverage is required but what is the pivot?
I think your characterisation of historic political movements is either incorrect, or alternatively I’m just reading you wrong. Which makes adoption into modern contexts strategically flawed, assuming I’m not reading you wrong.
It’s very frequently ‘I want to be in the club too’, and not ‘let’s destroy the club’, a movement pushes the Overton Window sufficiently that political, legal or cultural norms become broadly acceptable to the movement and it somewhat dissipates.
I think a minority in this thread would disagree with you on the importance of movements shifting the political ground, but a lot of your rhetoric seems to suggest just bypassing codified political structures because they’re broken. Or bypassing other things that characterise successful movements more generally.
If I’m misinterpreting I mean that’s somewhat on me but I don’t think I’m the only one somewhat confused as to what your vision of action encompasses Let's start there. I meant: " [being enfranchised into the voting process and things like legalistic rights being] some carrot dangled to placate these movements, rather than it being a key demand that’s being met." aren't mutually exclusive. Are we understanding each other that far? They’re not mutually exclusive, they are just different framings. If person A’s goal is simply to be enfranchised in the electoralism machine, and that’s granted, it’s not some carrot or pseudo-bribe being dangled, it’s simply their ambitions being met. + Show Spoiler +If person B’s goal is huge systemic change and their pressure gets the same concessions, it doesn’t meet their goals.
Certainly in the Northern Irish example, our Civil Right’s movement was mostly person As, with person Bs helping to push that along.
Your rhetoric seems to shit on boring old electoralism, and your evidence frequently invokes past movements whose actual goal was merely to be a meaningful part of that process.
If my read is off well, my bad
Okay.
Let's put/take "person A" from a real historical moment of "significant progress" in the US of your choice?
|
Northern Ireland27456 Posts
On April 22 2026 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 03:23 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2026 01:10 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 20:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 18:44 WombaT wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Your previous narrative almost presents these approaches as parallel if not directly oppositional. I may be misunderstanding you on certain points, fair enough that may be on me. + Show Spoiler +I assume we agree that public sentiment and electoral politics don’t enjoy a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, the leverage is required but what is the pivot?
I think your characterisation of historic political movements is either incorrect, or alternatively I’m just reading you wrong. Which makes adoption into modern contexts strategically flawed, assuming I’m not reading you wrong.
It’s very frequently ‘I want to be in the club too’, and not ‘let’s destroy the club’, a movement pushes the Overton Window sufficiently that political, legal or cultural norms become broadly acceptable to the movement and it somewhat dissipates.
I think a minority in this thread would disagree with you on the importance of movements shifting the political ground, but a lot of your rhetoric seems to suggest just bypassing codified political structures because they’re broken. Or bypassing other things that characterise successful movements more generally.
If I’m misinterpreting I mean that’s somewhat on me but I don’t think I’m the only one somewhat confused as to what your vision of action encompasses Let's start there. I meant: " [being enfranchised into the voting process and things like legalistic rights being] some carrot dangled to placate these movements, rather than it being a key demand that’s being met." aren't mutually exclusive. Are we understanding each other that far? They’re not mutually exclusive, they are just different framings. If person A’s goal is simply to be enfranchised in the electoralism machine, and that’s granted, it’s not some carrot or pseudo-bribe being dangled, it’s simply their ambitions being met. + Show Spoiler +If person B’s goal is huge systemic change and their pressure gets the same concessions, it doesn’t meet their goals.
Certainly in the Northern Irish example, our Civil Right’s movement was mostly person As, with person Bs helping to push that along.
Your rhetoric seems to shit on boring old electoralism, and your evidence frequently invokes past movements whose actual goal was merely to be a meaningful part of that process.
If my read is off well, my bad Okay. Let's put/take "person A" from a real historical moment of "significant progress" in the US of your choice?
To what purpose?
|
On April 22 2026 03:52 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2026 03:23 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2026 01:10 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 20:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 18:44 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 08:50 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2026 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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? Your previous narrative almost presents these approaches as parallel if not directly oppositional. I may be misunderstanding you on certain points, fair enough that may be on me. + Show Spoiler +I assume we agree that public sentiment and electoral politics don’t enjoy a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, the leverage is required but what is the pivot?
I think your characterisation of historic political movements is either incorrect, or alternatively I’m just reading you wrong. Which makes adoption into modern contexts strategically flawed, assuming I’m not reading you wrong.
It’s very frequently ‘I want to be in the club too’, and not ‘let’s destroy the club’, a movement pushes the Overton Window sufficiently that political, legal or cultural norms become broadly acceptable to the movement and it somewhat dissipates.
I think a minority in this thread would disagree with you on the importance of movements shifting the political ground, but a lot of your rhetoric seems to suggest just bypassing codified political structures because they’re broken. Or bypassing other things that characterise successful movements more generally.
If I’m misinterpreting I mean that’s somewhat on me but I don’t think I’m the only one somewhat confused as to what your vision of action encompasses Let's start there. I meant: " [being enfranchised into the voting process and things like legalistic rights being] some carrot dangled to placate these movements, rather than it being a key demand that’s being met." aren't mutually exclusive. Are we understanding each other that far? They’re not mutually exclusive, they are just different framings. If person A’s goal is simply to be enfranchised in the electoralism machine, and that’s granted, it’s not some carrot or pseudo-bribe being dangled, it’s simply their ambitions being met. + Show Spoiler +If person B’s goal is huge systemic change and their pressure gets the same concessions, it doesn’t meet their goals.
Certainly in the Northern Irish example, our Civil Right’s movement was mostly person As, with person Bs helping to push that along.
Your rhetoric seems to shit on boring old electoralism, and your evidence frequently invokes past movements whose actual goal was merely to be a meaningful part of that process.
If my read is off well, my bad Okay. Let's put/take "person A" from a real historical moment of "significant progress" in the US of your choice? To what purpose?
I'm carefully trying to bridge a gap between my meaning and your understanding to accentuate where exactly it is the miscommunication is happening.
|
On April 22 2026 03:22 LightSpectra wrote:
tl;dr
49% telling 51% what to do=good, American
51% telling 49% what to do=tyranny of the majority, mob rule, this is why ancient Athens collapsed (?), communist
I don't think Intro is wrong to suggest it wouldn't fix everything. If I were to interpret Intro uncharitably, I think the furthest I'd go is suggesting he's trying to move the conversation as though people are suggesting NPVIC would fix everything. Interpreted charitably, Intro is just (also) criticizing NPVIC.
Don't get baited into actually arguing the former - this whole discussion just started as criticism of Razyda for really not understanding what the fuck 'disenfranchised' even means.
|
I don't think it would fix everything either. But there are really no good arguments against it, unless you live in a swing state and selfishly want all the presidential campaigning done there exclusively.
|
On April 22 2026 02:48 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 02:46 Billyboy wrote:
Curious on people’s guesses on what happens when the ceasefire ends tomorrow. I predict Trump will announce a ceasefire, maybe the Strait will open for some number of hours, then Israel will violate the ceasefire and it'll be back to how it was.
Well, since he extended the ceasefire, we already know this.
As of what comes next, I'd guess, given that there is another Carrier strike group on the way and the amount of troops and landing vehicles has grown during this last period of ceasefire, Trump will wait, pretend like the negotiations are going great and then do a limited ground incursion.
My guess is that they are going to try to take out what they couldn't from air from Iranian assets that are threatening the Strait, plus send a contingent to where they believe the enriched uranium is to try to get it out.
The problem for this, is that Iranians have been waiting and preparing for this for a long time, plus they would be extremely stupid if they kept all of the enriched uranium in the same place. In any case, if this is the scenario they go for, it could be very costly and bad for everyone.
So, hopefully I'm wrong and they reach some sort of agreement soon and this insanity ends.
|
On April 22 2026 04:48 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 03:22 LightSpectra wrote:
tl;dr
49% telling 51% what to do=good, American
51% telling 49% what to do=tyranny of the majority, mob rule, this is why ancient Athens collapsed (?), communist I don't think Intro is wrong to suggest it wouldn't fix everything. If I were to interpret Intro uncharitably, I think the furthest I'd go is suggesting he's trying to move the conversation as though people are suggesting NPVIC would fix everything. Interpreted charitably, Intro is just (also) criticizing NPVIC. Don't get baited into actually arguing the former - this whole discussion just started as criticism of Razyda for really not understanding what the fuck 'disenfranchised' even means.
Yeah that's a related way of saying it. I think there are very good reasons to not have direct elections for all offices and rather than reducing them all to selfish or immoral reasons, to consider the arguments that pushed it over the line in the first place. It's lazy and/or dishonest to reduce eveything to attempt at partisan gain, and a little suspicious when the partisans who would benefit from a change are arguing for it. It's not as though one side wants it one way for morally bad reasons and one wants it the other way for morally good reasons. More wrt the EC in particular, who it benefits long term isn't clear, like the Senate. We know it benefits smaller states, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a forever advantage for one party. Dems have had lots of small state senators or won small states the EC. That changed because the party changed, not because it was always good for republicans. Even the slavery point is overwrought, when you look at how state delegates voted at the convention it is obviously a multifactor analysis that doesn't work looking along a single axis.
|
On April 22 2026 05:35 LightSpectra wrote:
I don't think it would fix everything either. But there are really no good arguments against it, unless you live in a swing state and selfishly want all the presidential campaigning done there exclusively.
Fair enough.
I assume/assumed there would be horrid abuses as there seemingly are in all parts of US elections, where shit like Florida deciding that nuclear family votes count 10x on the state level or whatever bullshit. The general idea of EC vs Popular Vote sure, but EC vs NPVIC I'd want someone much more educated on the subject weighing pros and cons, rather than just a 'its popular vote and popular vote is better' because I have super low faith it wouldn't be maximally abused even IF it could be enstated.
Also there's the fact that Trump won the popular vote and what that says about the US general population.
|
On April 22 2026 00:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 00:16 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 23:18 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 19:21 Razyda wrote: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:
[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. On April 21 2026 04:19 RenSC2 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." 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. Both employ a winner-takes-all approach within particular locales that then contribute to national elections, that particular element is comparable. Even though yes, there are differences. The problem is more pronounced in the UK indeed, given we have more than a few viable parties the downsides of this approach are more apparent. Party A can obtain a Parliamentary majority and rule unopposed, Party B as a sizeable opposition and Party C may have almost no seats, but they may actually have reasonably comparable shares of the national vote. Which does actually happen. In the US, you may end up with a popular vote/Presidential states won gap, but it can only be so big. In a de facto 2 party system, it can’t get too crazy at least. If a party is pulling 60/70% of the popular vote it’s not impossible that they lose, but states would have to be rather strangely orientated in distribution for that to occur. Anyway tangent aside, is your objection to adopting the popular vote, or this specific proposal? This proposal. If US want to adopt popular vote, then thats what congress is for. In general election process purpose is for people to follow it, rather than getting around it. On April 21 2026 23:36 KwarK wrote:
WombaT you’re very much overthinking his position. It’s just a gotcha he heard on a podcast and tried to repeat to a real audience. There’s no underlying principle involved. An attempt to identify the foundational beliefs and use those as a basis to show why his position is not logically consistent with them is a wasted effort. Literally read about it in Guardian, and only video on the subject I saw is the one RenSC linked... Very on brand for someone on the left though, to not being able to imagine that one can form own opinion, rather than have one handed down. But if a state wants to get around it, what’s wrong with that? Are states people or are they not? We can’t be disenfranchising states people after all. People aren’t criticising the idea that you can’t form your own opinion, I just can’t even really tell what you’re arguing or why, you don’t seem to have spent much time looking at the topic before your opening ‘own the libs’ post. I mean snark aside, I’m not a massive fan of this proposal as it feels a big fudge, I think it can be criticised pretty fairly there IMO. You could learn something if you weren’t so hellbent on owning the libs, indeed you may end up with abilities to defend your positions much, much better with a bit of exposure to counter-arguments.
What counter arguments? response were pretty much limited to "oh ah popular vote mucho better" drivel, with couple of people being able to realise that this isnt point of contention and some casual "owning the libs" and ad hominem, neither of which is actual argument, is it?
"I’m not a massive fan of this proposal as it feels a big fudge" so your position is rather similar to mine, yet you felt the need to contest? See thats the thing, for you it "feels" a bit fudge, I know why it is.
"But if a state wants to get around it, what’s wrong with that?" Because once you start going around rules/processes they become meaningless rather quickly. Out of curiosity: what do you think will happen in case where according to usual count of EC votes candidate A becomes president, but once NPVIC kick in, presidency will go to candidate B?
"People aren’t criticising the idea that you can’t form your own opinion" I didnt say that, I said "not being able to imagine" this two have different meaning.
Edit:
On April 22 2026 04:48 Fleetfeet wrote:
Don't get baited into actually arguing the former - this whole discussion just started as criticism of Razyda for really not understanding what the fuck 'disenfranchised' even means.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchised
"deprived of some right, privilege, or immunity"
Let me think of example...
Currently people of this poor Alabama have the right/privilege to choose their electors by voting, once NPVIC kick in they will be deprived of this right/privilege, or one may say disenfranchised.
|
United States44353 Posts
There is no usual. States are allowed to allocate electors as they see fit and some do it differently to others. Some split, some winner takes all, there’s no rule and therefore no rule change.
In your hypothetical bad case scenario the normal system is followed, the candidate with the most electors becomes president, but that candidate also happens to be the one that got more votes from the country they’re elected to be president of. Classic case of disenfrench.
|
United States44353 Posts
On April 22 2026 08:24 Razyda wrote:
Currently people of this poor Alabama have the right/privilege to choose their electors by voting, once NPVIC kick in they will be deprived of this right/privilege, or one may say disenfranchised.
Alabama voters count towards the national totals that would decide Alabama electors.
|
"I'm not just saying this to own the libs!" protested Razyda, glancing up from his hate-read of The Guardian.
|
United States44353 Posts
Silly thing is we don’t need to engage in hypotheticals about Alabama, this kind of thing already happens, there are multiple cases. I heard about this one time where everyone got to vote and then the guy with the most votes ended up getting the job. One of the worst cases of disenfranchisement I’ve seen. They just gave him the job, just like that. Didn’t even care.
|
The people in Birmingham should form their own state so they aren't disenfranchised by everyone else in Alabama voting against them.
|
United States44353 Posts
On April 22 2026 09:43 LightSpectra wrote:
The people in Birmingham should form their own state so they aren't disenfranchised by everyone else in Alabama voting against them.
But what about the Republican minority in Birmingham. You’re right that the Democratic minority in Alabama are essentially disenfranchised by the winner takes all allocation of Alabama’s electoral college votes. They get zero say in who their electors vote for. But subdividing it into multiple states will just disenfranchise the Republican minority in Birmingham, Birmingham’s electoral college votes will presumably go Democratic.
The only reasonable way to do this would be to keep subdividing states until there is no outvoted minority that goes without representation because every voter is their own state. Then every state/voter elects themselves to be an elector for their state and those electors vote on who should be President.
Is there a name for that system?
|
United States44353 Posts
As the two week ceasefire to finalize the terms of Iran’s surrender ends Trump has unilaterally decreed that the US will cease firing on Iran until further notice. Iran has not reciprocated and so this does appear to be a one sided ceasefire but they’re also choosing not to fire for now, except on tankers that violate Iran’s strait.
It’s been an exciting day of updates for some but for Trump it was just a Tuesday.
|
On April 22 2026 08:24 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 00:36 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 00:16 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 23:18 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 19:21 Razyda wrote: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:
[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. On April 21 2026 04:19 RenSC2 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."
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. Both employ a winner-takes-all approach within particular locales that then contribute to national elections, that particular element is comparable. Even though yes, there are differences. The problem is more pronounced in the UK indeed, given we have more than a few viable parties the downsides of this approach are more apparent. Party A can obtain a Parliamentary majority and rule unopposed, Party B as a sizeable opposition and Party C may have almost no seats, but they may actually have reasonably comparable shares of the national vote. Which does actually happen. In the US, you may end up with a popular vote/Presidential states won gap, but it can only be so big. In a de facto 2 party system, it can’t get too crazy at least. If a party is pulling 60/70% of the popular vote it’s not impossible that they lose, but states would have to be rather strangely orientated in distribution for that to occur. Anyway tangent aside, is your objection to adopting the popular vote, or this specific proposal? This proposal. If US want to adopt popular vote, then thats what congress is for. In general election process purpose is for people to follow it, rather than getting around it. On April 21 2026 23:36 KwarK wrote:
WombaT you’re very much overthinking his position. It’s just a gotcha he heard on a podcast and tried to repeat to a real audience. There’s no underlying principle involved. An attempt to identify the foundational beliefs and use those as a basis to show why his position is not logically consistent with them is a wasted effort. Literally read about it in Guardian, and only video on the subject I saw is the one RenSC linked... Very on brand for someone on the left though, to not being able to imagine that one can form own opinion, rather than have one handed down. But if a state wants to get around it, what’s wrong with that? Are states people or are they not? We can’t be disenfranchising states people after all. People aren’t criticising the idea that you can’t form your own opinion, I just can’t even really tell what you’re arguing or why, you don’t seem to have spent much time looking at the topic before your opening ‘own the libs’ post. I mean snark aside, I’m not a massive fan of this proposal as it feels a big fudge, I think it can be criticised pretty fairly there IMO. You could learn something if you weren’t so hellbent on owning the libs, indeed you may end up with abilities to defend your positions much, much better with a bit of exposure to counter-arguments. What counter arguments? response were pretty much limited to "oh ah popular vote mucho better" drivel, with couple of people being able to realise that this isnt point of contention and some casual "owning the libs" and ad hominem, neither of which is actual argument, is it? "I’m not a massive fan of this proposal as it feels a big fudge" so your position is rather similar to mine, yet you felt the need to contest? See thats the thing, for you it "feels" a bit fudge, I know why it is. "But if a state wants to get around it, what’s wrong with that?" Because once you start going around rules/processes they become meaningless rather quickly. Out of curiosity: what do you think will happen in case where according to usual count of EC votes candidate A becomes president, but once NPVIC kick in, presidency will go to candidate B? "People aren’t criticising the idea that you can’t form your own opinion" I didnt say that, I said "not being able to imagine" this two have different meaning. Edit: Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 04:48 Fleetfeet wrote:
Don't get baited into actually arguing the former - this whole discussion just started as criticism of Razyda for really not understanding what the fuck 'disenfranchised' even means. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchised"deprived of some right, privilege, or immunity" Let me think of example... Currently people of this poor Alabama have the right/privilege to choose their electors by voting, once NPVIC kick in they will be deprived of this right/privilege, or one may say disenfranchised.
...No?
Alabama voters' votes are considered and counted for the election. They aren't disenfranchised, they just lost. They were allowed to vote and their vote counted.
Let's do some quick logic with coins.
'Votes' are heads(X) or tails(O). The group is 5 coins.
In a normal vote for that group, the majority of results wins the election. All the votes COUNT, so when the result is XXXXO, X wins. No disenfranchisement.
If the election was decided differently, say "The last vote counted wins the election", then that same XXXXO vote is decided for O. The first four votes are disenfranchised - their choice literally did not matter.
Now, take our simple first group with the logical 'majority decides'. It's one group of ten groups, and while each group is decided by its respecive majority, the whole pot is decided by the majority of group decisions. This is an extremely rough analog for the EC.
Since the results are decided by majority of 10 groups, not each individual group, our O result in our simple group is not tallied because it already lost its election. The simple issue is that this can lead to a situation of the following:
Four groups ended XXXXO. Six ended OXOXO. The total tally of coins over all 10 groups is 22 O, 28X, but O 'won the election' because it won 6 of the groups.
The complex issue is that heads-lobbyists and tails-lobbyists are trying to make it so some of the coins are tails on both sides or weighted, or whatever they can do to rig the odds. That's going to be an issue either way, but is arguably a more pronounced issue where rigging one coin weights that group much more heavily. The O voter in our simple group is disenfranchised in this system - its vote does not matter.
Popular Election just looks at the sum of all coin rolls, and therefore all coin tosses matter and no toss is disenfranchised. Alabama-group could roll XXXXX and wouldn't be disenfranchised because every other group rolled OOOOO, they'd have just lost the election. Their votes counted just fine.
The FAIR criticism is I see a future where Nebraska-group decides that it's gonna flip 100 coins instead of 5, or whatever other fuckery is concocted. Not that Popular vote disenfranchises more people.
|
On April 22 2026 08:51 KwarK wrote:
There is no usual. States are allowed to allocate electors as they see fit and some do it differently to others. Some split, some winner takes all, there’s no rule and therefore no rule change.
"There is no usual" is an odd argument to make. What there is no, is national popular vote for president, it is only fun statistic on the side, meaningless, maybe beside bragging rights. So in the same way like people look at national vote now, they will look at the single state vote if NPVIC will come. Rest of your paragraph is correct somewhat, as a matter of fact they can ignore vote entirely and assign electors as they like without NPVIC, why dont they do that?
On April 22 2026 08:51 KwarK wrote:
In your hypothetical bad case scenario the normal system is followed, the candidate with the most electors becomes president, but that candidate also happens to be the one that got more votes from the country they’re elected to be president of. Classic case of disenfrench.
Is it normal though? US citizens do not vote for president, it is not national vote, it is state wide vote, happening in all states, at roughly the same time, they vote for their state electors (elector slate, whatever), once you make statewide vote for electors having minimal impact on state electors what exactly do they even vote for?
On April 22 2026 08:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 08:24 Razyda wrote:
Currently people of this poor Alabama have the right/privilege to choose their electors by voting, once NPVIC kick in they will be deprived of this right/privilege, or one may say disenfranchised. Alabama voters count towards the national totals that would decide Alabama electors.
Why would Alabama voters want that? Thats literally net negative for them. It is kinda like telling least populous state voters: most populous state votes will count in this state too.
Edit:
On April 22 2026 10:18 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 08:24 Razyda wrote:On April 22 2026 00:36 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 00:16 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 23:18 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 19:21 Razyda wrote: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:
[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. On April 21 2026 04:19 RenSC2 wrote:
[quote]
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. Both employ a winner-takes-all approach within particular locales that then contribute to national elections, that particular element is comparable. Even though yes, there are differences. The problem is more pronounced in the UK indeed, given we have more than a few viable parties the downsides of this approach are more apparent. Party A can obtain a Parliamentary majority and rule unopposed, Party B as a sizeable opposition and Party C may have almost no seats, but they may actually have reasonably comparable shares of the national vote. Which does actually happen. In the US, you may end up with a popular vote/Presidential states won gap, but it can only be so big. In a de facto 2 party system, it can’t get too crazy at least. If a party is pulling 60/70% of the popular vote it’s not impossible that they lose, but states would have to be rather strangely orientated in distribution for that to occur. Anyway tangent aside, is your objection to adopting the popular vote, or this specific proposal? This proposal. If US want to adopt popular vote, then thats what congress is for. In general election process purpose is for people to follow it, rather than getting around it. On April 21 2026 23:36 KwarK wrote:
WombaT you’re very much overthinking his position. It’s just a gotcha he heard on a podcast and tried to repeat to a real audience. There’s no underlying principle involved. An attempt to identify the foundational beliefs and use those as a basis to show why his position is not logically consistent with them is a wasted effort. Literally read about it in Guardian, and only video on the subject I saw is the one RenSC linked... Very on brand for someone on the left though, to not being able to imagine that one can form own opinion, rather than have one handed down. But if a state wants to get around it, what’s wrong with that? Are states people or are they not? We can’t be disenfranchising states people after all. People aren’t criticising the idea that you can’t form your own opinion, I just can’t even really tell what you’re arguing or why, you don’t seem to have spent much time looking at the topic before your opening ‘own the libs’ post. I mean snark aside, I’m not a massive fan of this proposal as it feels a big fudge, I think it can be criticised pretty fairly there IMO. You could learn something if you weren’t so hellbent on owning the libs, indeed you may end up with abilities to defend your positions much, much better with a bit of exposure to counter-arguments. What counter arguments? response were pretty much limited to "oh ah popular vote mucho better" drivel, with couple of people being able to realise that this isnt point of contention and some casual "owning the libs" and ad hominem, neither of which is actual argument, is it? "I’m not a massive fan of this proposal as it feels a big fudge" so your position is rather similar to mine, yet you felt the need to contest? See thats the thing, for you it "feels" a bit fudge, I know why it is. "But if a state wants to get around it, what’s wrong with that?" Because once you start going around rules/processes they become meaningless rather quickly. Out of curiosity: what do you think will happen in case where according to usual count of EC votes candidate A becomes president, but once NPVIC kick in, presidency will go to candidate B? "People aren’t criticising the idea that you can’t form your own opinion" I didnt say that, I said "not being able to imagine" this two have different meaning. Edit: On April 22 2026 04:48 Fleetfeet wrote:
Don't get baited into actually arguing the former - this whole discussion just started as criticism of Razyda for really not understanding what the fuck 'disenfranchised' even means. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchised"deprived of some right, privilege, or immunity" Let me think of example... Currently people of this poor Alabama have the right/privilege to choose their electors by voting, once NPVIC kick in they will be deprived of this right/privilege, or one may say disenfranchised. ...No? Alabama voters' votes are considered and counted for the election. They aren't disenfranchised, they just lost. They were allowed to vote and their vote counted. Let's do some quick logic with coins. 'Votes' are heads(X) or tails(O). The group is 5 coins. In a normal vote for that group, the majority of results wins the election. All the votes COUNT, so when the result is XXXXO, X wins. No disenfranchisement. If the election was decided differently, say "The last vote counted wins the election", then that same XXXXO vote is decided for O. The first four votes are disenfranchised - their choice literally did not matter. Now, take our simple first group with the logical 'majority decides'. It's one group of ten groups, and while each group is decided by its respecive majority, the whole pot is decided by the majority of group decisions. This is an extremely rough analog for the EC. Since the results are decided by majority of 10 groups, not each individual group, our O result in our simple group is not tallied because it already lost its election. The simple issue is that this can lead to a situation of the following: Four groups ended XXXXO. Six ended OXOXO. The total tally of coins over all 10 groups is 22 O, 28X, but O 'won the election' because it won 6 of the groups. The complex issue is that heads-lobbyists and tails-lobbyists are trying to make it so some of the coins are tails on both sides or weighted, or whatever they can do to rig the odds. That's going to be an issue either way, but is arguably a more pronounced issue where rigging one coin weights that group much more heavily. The O voter in our simple group is disenfranchised in this system - its vote does not matter. Popular Election just looks at the sum of all coin rolls, and therefore all coin tosses matter and no toss is disenfranchised. Alabama-group could roll XXXXX and wouldn't be disenfranchised because every other group rolled OOOOO, they'd have just lost the election. Their votes counted just fine. The FAIR criticism is I see a future where Nebraska-group decides that it's gonna flip 100 coins instead of 5, or whatever other fuckery is concocted. Not that Popular vote disenfranchises more people.
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
|
United States44353 Posts
On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 08:51 KwarK wrote:
There is no usual. States are allowed to allocate electors as they see fit and some do it differently to others. Some split, some winner takes all, there’s no rule and therefore no rule change.
"There is no usual" is an odd argument to make. What there is no, is national popular vote for president, it is only fun statistic on the side, meaningless, maybe beside bragging rights. So in the same way like people look at national vote now, they will look at the single state vote if NPVIC will come. Rest of your paragraph is correct somewhat, as a matter of fact they can ignore vote entirely and assign electors as they like without NPVIC, why dont they do that? Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 08:51 KwarK wrote:
In your hypothetical bad case scenario the normal system is followed, the candidate with the most electors becomes president, but that candidate also happens to be the one that got more votes from the country they’re elected to be president of. Classic case of disenfrench. Is it normal though? US citizens do not vote for president, it is not national vote, it is state wide vote, happening in all states, at roughly the same time, they vote for their state electors (elector slate, whatever), once you make statewide vote for electors having minimal impact on state electors what exactly do they even vote for? Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 08:56 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2026 08:24 Razyda wrote:
Currently people of this poor Alabama have the right/privilege to choose their electors by voting, once NPVIC kick in they will be deprived of this right/privilege, or one may say disenfranchised. Alabama voters count towards the national totals that would decide Alabama electors. Why would Alabama voters want that? Thats literally net negative for them. It is kinda like telling least populous state voters: most populous state votes will count in this state too.
Why are you trying so hard to disenfranchise people? Just let them vote man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
