|
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 Ireland26667 Posts
On April 22 2026 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:11 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. Why not cut out the anachronistic middle man? Because their side gets an unfair advantage. This is what it's all about. The Republicans won't admit it because lying is their second nature by now.
I’m not referring to that aspect of the Electoral College, but the seemingly pointless symbolic ritual of having electors you technically vote for so that they can vote for what you voted for
DOGE would have a field day with that one
|
On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not?
What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-)
On April 22 2026 21:35 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:11 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. Why not cut out the anachronistic middle man? Because their side gets an unfair advantage. This is what it's all about. The Republicans won't admit it because lying is their second nature by now. I’m not referring to that aspect of the Electoral College, but the seemingly pointless symbolic ritual of having electors you technically vote for so that they can vote for what you voted for DOGE would have a field day with that one
I'm saying they don't actually give a shit about the bolded. They only care about the unfair advantage.
|
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not?
Hard to know, indeed there may be no answer to this and it would be down to the personal whims and composition of the Supreme Court at whatever time it gets there, if it ever does.
Intuitively and from what little I know on this specific domain which is more than many, and a lot less than many others, it feels a pretty big transgressive fudge for a state to do this unilaterally, or a bunch to do the same and team up as it were.
If the argument is that if x state consents to a change in win conditions for a Presidential election, then that’s up to them, presumably one could extend that from something broadly popular (like popular vote) into all sorts of other, much less defensible domains with the same rationale.
Suffice to say I don’t particularly like these proposals myself. I’m not even sure they’re particularly serious proposals and merely exist to keep the conversation and momentum towards a universal popular vote going
|
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
On April 22 2026 21:41 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-) Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:35 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:11 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. Why not cut out the anachronistic middle man? Because their side gets an unfair advantage. This is what it's all about. The Republicans won't admit it because lying is their second nature by now. I’m not referring to that aspect of the Electoral College, but the seemingly pointless symbolic ritual of having electors you technically vote for so that they can vote for what you voted for DOGE would have a field day with that one I'm saying they don't actually give a shit about the bolded. They only care about the unfair advantage.
You misunderstand, no advantage is gained or lost because of that particular step, so why keep it?
Electing electors to travel to Washington to codify how their state leaned made sense in ye olden days, it makes no sense to keep it.
I’m referring specifically to that particular step in the process, which has long struck me as curious so I was wondering why it persists.
Curious but somewhat functionally irrelevant. To my tastes a popular vote is preferable, you could still keep electors there, or you get rid of electors and have basically the current EC system which I consider worse.
Having some intermediate layer just strikes me as completely redundant, not to the degree it annoys me because it basically doesn’t actually do anything
|
On April 22 2026 19:29 baal wrote:
Half your country is convinced there's rigging going on to the point congress got raided and you will keep parroting this bullshit instead of simply securing the election process.
"Why don't you simply appease the fascists by giving into their factually wrong talking points? Are you stupid?"
If the republicans are pushing a shitty system then Dems should get the correct national ID system but they don't want that do they? they want no ID because of the same reason, it benefits them.
Republicans won't vote for a Democratic proposal for a free universal ID because what they want is a poll tax, not election security. So it's dead in the Senate no matter what happens.
Democrats could have a symbolic vote for universal ID + ID checks at voting sites, but Republicans will just bitch and spread misinformation about it anyway, so why bother?
|
On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Jimmy exclusively consumes that media but doesn’t have anyone in his life to talk to and so he shows up here and interrupts whatever else is going on to demand to know why everyone (literally nobody in this topic) is talking about Noem’s crossdressing husband. Also, FYI, crossdresser isn’t a gender identity.
i don't think the mmiwg part of mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ is a gender identity either. i'm not 100% on that though. I'm also not 100% on what all the letters mean in that 16 character acronym (usually saying that with the right delivery gets a laugh).
i spitball stuff on here before i bring it into the real world. so far all my IRL mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ jokes have been a smash hit.
On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:For context, an indigenous Canadian woman drew attention to the systematic sexual violence inflicted upon her community. She added Missing & Murdered Indigenous Woman to other minorities who need awareness of the marginalization they’ve faced. The right wing influencerverse seized upon this as if it was outrageous and not basically the same as POWMIA flags and bumper stickers. + Show Spoiler +
for context, i am well aware of all of this. for context, shouldn't you add that she is a sitting MP in the NDP? Lee Gazan is not just some random canadian woman. how many times how you voted NDP? I've voted NDP 3 times. I've said this in the Canadian politics thread and i'll say it in here as well seeing as you brought it up.
Canada needs a labour party because the NDP ain't it. The the 3 recent byelections their popular vote was 8%. As long as one of the NDP's top priorities is the mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ community these are the election results they will get.
Also, if the NDP wants to be the national party it claims it has been since the days of Ed Broadbent they are going to have to ... some day... some how... learn how to speak french.
Lee Gazan's latest idiot move got unanimously struck down in parliament. Ezra threw her the easiest soft ball possible and she swung and missed.
The only thing Matt Walsh knows about the NDP is what his production staff at the Daily Wire tell him. I don't really go to Matt Walsh for the latest news on the NDP. Perhaps you do?
|
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
On April 22 2026 19:29 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 15:29 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2026 15:13 baal wrote:On April 22 2026 15:04 KwarK wrote:On April 22 2026 14:36 baal wrote:On April 19 2026 01:32 KwarK wrote:
Jimmy, that’s not how it works. You need ID to get on the electoral roll and you need to be on the roll to vote. Non citizens aren’t just showing up and voting no questions asked. So if you need an ID to be on the roll, why not ask for ID when they vote if they already have it? Because they’re not universally freely available and the US has a very long history of restricting access to voting. One consequence of getting caught breaking the rules hundreds of times is that nobody trusts you anymore. If you were able to read history books you’d find them full of examples of the people running US elections explaining that the restrictions they were adding would be great because they’d enshrine white supremacy. That’s the kind of context that makes people suspicious when you start adding restrictions, especially when it’s to combat a problem that there is no evidence for. But you said they already require ID to enroll to vote, so why not ask it in the poll itself if they already used the ID to register? ID to get on the roll is a far better system for users because it doesn’t force everyone to get everything done in a single day or miss out. People are invited to update their voter registration information when renewing drivers licenses, when engaging in property transactions, when getting tribal IDs/passports etc. Then you get your new registration card mailed to you and if there’s an error there is plenty of time to correct it. If you don’t have proof of address that day then you come back the next. It works. 1 day? what are you talking about?, you have years to get your ID for the next election. Show nested quote +I work as an election judge in US Elections. We do our best to process same day registrations for citizens who show up with IDs and proof of address and want to vote but the system has been known to be overwhelmed. A vote by ID system without a preexisting voter roll is putting everyone on same day registration, it’s unworkable. And one with a preexisting voter roll is what we already have where the ID can be done ahead of time. There is no need for an enrollment if you have voting ID tied to an address, you are automatically per-registered to vote in your location. Show nested quote +The US doesn’t have voter ID cards. There are a variety of ID cards but resident aliens have drivers licenses and state IDs or military IDs. And an awful lot of citizens don’t have passports. So you’d have to invent a new ID card and get hundreds of millions of Americans to carry them. But let’s say that you did that. You’d still need to keep the current voter registration roll system, you’d not want someone who moved state to vote in the wrong one so the card alone wouldn’t be enough. No you don't, if you move you have to re-apply for a new voting ID with your new address. Show nested quote +
Given that there is no evidence of a problem, what exactly are you trying to achieve here?
lol this is why the questions was aimed at Europeans because americans will just parrot their party's retarded talking points like this one. Half your country is convinced there's rigging going on to the point congress got raided and you will keep parroting this bullshit instead of simply securing the election process. Show nested quote +
I’m not saying that there couldn’t be a successful system like the Mexican one. But the politicians in the US aren’t advocating for one of those, they’re not funding a new national ID card system and Federalizing elections. They’re advocating for breaking the US system and replacing it with nothing. It’s simply not a good faith attempt to make things better.
Ours its not a successful system at all, rigging is rampant but at the very least we all agree the ID system is extremely important and things would be way worse without it. If the republicans are pushing a shitty system then Dems should get the correct national ID system but they don't want that do they? they want no ID because of the same reason, it benefits them.
Right so you think the US has to adopt some kind of electoral photo ID system because ‘well lots of people are mad about electoral fraud’ which hasn’t actually happened. While saying that Mexico’s, ‘it’s not a successful system at all, rigging is rampant…’ at the same time despite having such a system.
Makes sense to me bro.
It’s a very easy Republican political win if they were earnest about it, but they are not which is hence why they don’t do it. It does require doing bipartisan politics, or at least attempting to.
1. Fraud bad despite evidence we want x
2. Dems express concerns
3. Ok heres our proposal that addresses 2), if you reject that it’s pretty obvious it’s coming from a place of self-interest given we addressed your concerns
4. You either get what you want with some concessions, or you don’t but it gives you political ammunition
Republicans don’t do this, and they don’t because they’re generally full of it. And not just on this topic
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
On April 22 2026 22:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Jimmy exclusively consumes that media but doesn’t have anyone in his life to talk to and so he shows up here and interrupts whatever else is going on to demand to know why everyone (literally nobody in this topic) is talking about Noem’s crossdressing husband. Also, FYI, crossdresser isn’t a gender identity. i don't think the mmiwg part of mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ is a gender identity either. i'm not 100% on that though. I'm also not 100% on what all the letters mean in that 16 character acronym (usually saying that with the right delivery gets a laugh). i spitball stuff on here before i bring it into the real world. so far all my IRL mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ jokes have been a smash hit. Show nested quote +On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:For context, an indigenous Canadian woman drew attention to the systematic sexual violence inflicted upon her community. She added Missing & Murdered Indigenous Woman to other minorities who need awareness of the marginalization they’ve faced. The right wing influencerverse seized upon this as if it was outrageous and not basically the same as POWMIA flags and bumper stickers. + Show Spoiler + for context, i am well aware of all of this. how many times how you voted NDP? I've voted NDP 3 times. I've said this in the Canadian politics thread and i'll say it in here as well seeing as you brought it up. Canada needs a labour party because the NDP ain't it. The the 3 recent byelections their popular vote was 8%. As long as one of the NDP's top priorities is the mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ community these are the election results they will get. Also, if the NDP wants to be the national party it claims it has been since the days of Ed Broadbent they are going to have to ... some day... some how... learn how to speak french. Lee Gazan's latest idiot move got unanimously struck down in parliament. Ezra threw her the easiest soft ball possible and she swung and missed. The only thing Matt Walsh knows about the NDP is what his production staff at the Daily Wire tell him. I don't really go to Matt Walsh for the latest news on the NDP. Perhaps you do?
Adding an extra letter to the prior LGBT acronym has been done to fucking death, it’s profoundly boring material.
I’m sure your guido buddies love it but I’m sure there’s some open mics in your area where you can test it to a broader audience.
There’s a pretty strong link between a perception that x group is being overly prioritised and well, that not actually remotely being the case.
|
On April 22 2026 21:41 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-)
Nothing happened to it.
On April 22 2026 22:06 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-) On April 22 2026 21:35 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:11 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. Why not cut out the anachronistic middle man? Because their side gets an unfair advantage. This is what it's all about. The Republicans won't admit it because lying is their second nature by now. I’m not referring to that aspect of the Electoral College, but the seemingly pointless symbolic ritual of having electors you technically vote for so that they can vote for what you voted for DOGE would have a field day with that one I'm saying they don't actually give a shit about the bolded. They only care about the unfair advantage. You misunderstand, no advantage is gained or lost because of that particular step, so why keep it? Electing electors to travel to Washington to codify how their state leaned made sense in ye olden days, it makes no sense to keep it. I’m referring specifically to that particular step in the process, which has long struck me as curious so I was wondering why it persists. Curious but somewhat functionally irrelevant. To my tastes a popular vote is preferable, you could still keep electors there, or you get rid of electors and have basically the current EC system which I consider worse. Having some intermediate layer just strikes me as completely redundant, not to the degree it annoys me because it basically doesn’t actually do anything
Direct election was explicitly voted against at the constitutional convention. The EC is part of a broader compromise that led to how to balance the government. Changing it is possible but it's similar to saying why not make this part of the car out of tungsten, and this part of the car out of titanium, and this part of the car out of steel. Each can all sound good on their own on paper but at some point you have to figure out how to join the different parts together like welding the titanium to the steel somehow. It becomes less attractive when you look at the big picture. And not because the tungsten supporters have an unfair advantage or something. Kind of like how the fact that none of Europe except France directly elects their top person has nothing to do with some crackpot idea that the UK parliament was set up to favor the Tories.
|
On April 22 2026 22:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 22:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Jimmy exclusively consumes that media but doesn’t have anyone in his life to talk to and so he shows up here and interrupts whatever else is going on to demand to know why everyone (literally nobody in this topic) is talking about Noem’s crossdressing husband. Also, FYI, crossdresser isn’t a gender identity. i don't think the mmiwg part of mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ is a gender identity either. i'm not 100% on that though. I'm also not 100% on what all the letters mean in that 16 character acronym (usually saying that with the right delivery gets a laugh). i spitball stuff on here before i bring it into the real world. so far all my IRL mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ jokes have been a smash hit. On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:For context, an indigenous Canadian woman drew attention to the systematic sexual violence inflicted upon her community. She added Missing & Murdered Indigenous Woman to other minorities who need awareness of the marginalization they’ve faced. The right wing influencerverse seized upon this as if it was outrageous and not basically the same as POWMIA flags and bumper stickers. + Show Spoiler + for context, i am well aware of all of this. how many times how you voted NDP? I've voted NDP 3 times. I've said this in the Canadian politics thread and i'll say it in here as well seeing as you brought it up. Canada needs a labour party because the NDP ain't it. The the 3 recent byelections their popular vote was 8%. As long as one of the NDP's top priorities is the mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ community these are the election results they will get. Also, if the NDP wants to be the national party it claims it has been since the days of Ed Broadbent they are going to have to ... some day... some how... learn how to speak french. Lee Gazan's latest idiot move got unanimously struck down in parliament. Ezra threw her the easiest soft ball possible and she swung and missed. The only thing Matt Walsh knows about the NDP is what his production staff at the Daily Wire tell him. I don't really go to Matt Walsh for the latest news on the NDP. Perhaps you do? Adding an extra letter to the prior LGBT acronym has been done to fucking death, it’s profoundly boring material. I’m sure your guido buddies love it but I’m sure there’s some open mics in your area where you can test it to a broader audience. There’s a pretty strong link between a perception that x group is being overly prioritised and well, that not actually remotely being the case.
Jimmy brags about voting for sex pests in multiple countries, you can imagine the kind of people in his life that have convulsing fits of laughter about gay jokes.
|
On April 22 2026 22:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 22:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Jimmy exclusively consumes that media but doesn’t have anyone in his life to talk to and so he shows up here and interrupts whatever else is going on to demand to know why everyone (literally nobody in this topic) is talking about Noem’s crossdressing husband. Also, FYI, crossdresser isn’t a gender identity. i don't think the mmiwg part of mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ is a gender identity either. i'm not 100% on that though. I'm also not 100% on what all the letters mean in that 16 character acronym (usually saying that with the right delivery gets a laugh). i spitball stuff on here before i bring it into the real world. so far all my IRL mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ jokes have been a smash hit. On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:For context, an indigenous Canadian woman drew attention to the systematic sexual violence inflicted upon her community. She added Missing & Murdered Indigenous Woman to other minorities who need awareness of the marginalization they’ve faced. The right wing influencerverse seized upon this as if it was outrageous and not basically the same as POWMIA flags and bumper stickers. + Show Spoiler + for context, i am well aware of all of this. how many times how you voted NDP? I've voted NDP 3 times. I've said this in the Canadian politics thread and i'll say it in here as well seeing as you brought it up. Canada needs a labour party because the NDP ain't it. The the 3 recent byelections their popular vote was 8%. As long as one of the NDP's top priorities is the mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ community these are the election results they will get. Also, if the NDP wants to be the national party it claims it has been since the days of Ed Broadbent they are going to have to ... some day... some how... learn how to speak french. Lee Gazan's latest idiot move got unanimously struck down in parliament. Ezra threw her the easiest soft ball possible and she swung and missed. The only thing Matt Walsh knows about the NDP is what his production staff at the Daily Wire tell him. I don't really go to Matt Walsh for the latest news on the NDP. Perhaps you do? Adding an extra letter to the prior LGBT acronym has been done to fucking death, it’s profoundly boring material.
I’m sure your guido buddies love it but I’m sure there’s some open mics in your area where you can test it to a broader audience. There’s a pretty strong link between a perception that x group is being overly prioritised and well, that not actually remotely being the case.
WIthin Canada joking about it has been a smash hit. Gazan is supposed to be in Canada's labour party. In fact, if the TL MODs want to track my entries that come from my smart phone they'll see I'm 1 block east of Toronto's gay village a consistent ~5% of the time. Even in that neighbourhood they think Lee Gazan is an idiot and love laughing at her moronic attempts to claim everyone is an anti-gay bigot.
|
On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not?
LMGTFY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
|
On April 22 2026 23:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
How the fuck am I going to google your opinion?
|
On April 22 2026 23:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 23:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact How the fuck am I going to google your opinion?
Just because you add a "do you think" doesn't mean it's an opinion. Do you think water is wet?
|
On April 22 2026 23:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 23:10 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 23:09 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality_of_the_National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact How the fuck am I going to google your opinion? Just because you add a "do you think" doesn't mean it's an opinion. Do you think water is wet?
...You see the first sentence of the Jimmy Wales Rehab Fund article you lent me saying "There is ongoing legal debate"? Do you think there is ongoing legal debate about whether water is wet, and do you want to revise your bullshit analogy after realizing that?
Do you even know what the question I asked you meant?
There is an originalist case that the states can do whatever they want the electors.
That means Alabama can pass a law that if Republicans get at least 10 votes, they win.
They can pass a law that if oil goes over $100 the Democrat wins.
They can pass a law that if the hedgehog sees his shadow, the Democrat wins.
If you don't have that power, there is no other justification why under for example the Alabama constitution you would possibly be able to make the result of an election contingent on other elections that DO NOT take place under the protections guaranteed by the Alabama constitution, and which are not run by Alabama, and do not have Alabamans voting in them. There's no other way. That's where the power would come from and that's what you get.
My opinion that I'm incredibly brave enough to share here without going "Durr Wikipedia" is going down that road obviously cannot be right.
Get one of your own or don't fucking waste our time.
|
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
On April 22 2026 22:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 22:38 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 22:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Jimmy exclusively consumes that media but doesn’t have anyone in his life to talk to and so he shows up here and interrupts whatever else is going on to demand to know why everyone (literally nobody in this topic) is talking about Noem’s crossdressing husband. Also, FYI, crossdresser isn’t a gender identity. i don't think the mmiwg part of mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ is a gender identity either. i'm not 100% on that though. I'm also not 100% on what all the letters mean in that 16 character acronym (usually saying that with the right delivery gets a laugh). i spitball stuff on here before i bring it into the real world. so far all my IRL mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ jokes have been a smash hit. On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:For context, an indigenous Canadian woman drew attention to the systematic sexual violence inflicted upon her community. She added Missing & Murdered Indigenous Woman to other minorities who need awareness of the marginalization they’ve faced. The right wing influencerverse seized upon this as if it was outrageous and not basically the same as POWMIA flags and bumper stickers. + Show Spoiler + for context, i am well aware of all of this. how many times how you voted NDP? I've voted NDP 3 times. I've said this in the Canadian politics thread and i'll say it in here as well seeing as you brought it up. Canada needs a labour party because the NDP ain't it. The the 3 recent byelections their popular vote was 8%. As long as one of the NDP's top priorities is the mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ community these are the election results they will get. Also, if the NDP wants to be the national party it claims it has been since the days of Ed Broadbent they are going to have to ... some day... some how... learn how to speak french. Lee Gazan's latest idiot move got unanimously struck down in parliament. Ezra threw her the easiest soft ball possible and she swung and missed. The only thing Matt Walsh knows about the NDP is what his production staff at the Daily Wire tell him. I don't really go to Matt Walsh for the latest news on the NDP. Perhaps you do? Adding an extra letter to the prior LGBT acronym has been done to fucking death, it’s profoundly boring material.
I’m sure your guido buddies love it but I’m sure there’s some open mics in your area where you can test it to a broader audience. There’s a pretty strong link between a perception that x group is being overly prioritised and well, that not actually remotely being the case. WIthin Canada joking about it has been a smash hit. Gazan is supposed to be in Canada's labour party. In fact, if the TL MODs want to track my entries that come from my smart phone they'll see I'm 1 block east of Toronto's gay village a consistent ~5% of the time. Even in that neighbourhood they think Lee Gazan is an idiot and love laughing at her moronic attempts to claim everyone is an anti-gay bigot.
Yeah Jimmy I’m sure, you’ve been accused of many things but being funny isn’t one
I mean yeah my ‘niggers are lazy’ bit also kills when I test it out on my nearest and dearest! Ergo it’s totally cool
I’m sure your set kills, go give it a shot and let me know how it’s received lol
|
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
On April 22 2026 22:57 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 22:38 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 22:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Jimmy exclusively consumes that media but doesn’t have anyone in his life to talk to and so he shows up here and interrupts whatever else is going on to demand to know why everyone (literally nobody in this topic) is talking about Noem’s crossdressing husband. Also, FYI, crossdresser isn’t a gender identity. i don't think the mmiwg part of mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ is a gender identity either. i'm not 100% on that though. I'm also not 100% on what all the letters mean in that 16 character acronym (usually saying that with the right delivery gets a laugh). i spitball stuff on here before i bring it into the real world. so far all my IRL mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ jokes have been a smash hit. On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:For context, an indigenous Canadian woman drew attention to the systematic sexual violence inflicted upon her community. She added Missing & Murdered Indigenous Woman to other minorities who need awareness of the marginalization they’ve faced. The right wing influencerverse seized upon this as if it was outrageous and not basically the same as POWMIA flags and bumper stickers. + Show Spoiler + for context, i am well aware of all of this. how many times how you voted NDP? I've voted NDP 3 times. I've said this in the Canadian politics thread and i'll say it in here as well seeing as you brought it up. Canada needs a labour party because the NDP ain't it. The the 3 recent byelections their popular vote was 8%. As long as one of the NDP's top priorities is the mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ community these are the election results they will get. Also, if the NDP wants to be the national party it claims it has been since the days of Ed Broadbent they are going to have to ... some day... some how... learn how to speak french. Lee Gazan's latest idiot move got unanimously struck down in parliament. Ezra threw her the easiest soft ball possible and she swung and missed. The only thing Matt Walsh knows about the NDP is what his production staff at the Daily Wire tell him. I don't really go to Matt Walsh for the latest news on the NDP. Perhaps you do? Adding an extra letter to the prior LGBT acronym has been done to fucking death, it’s profoundly boring material. I’m sure your guido buddies love it but I’m sure there’s some open mics in your area where you can test it to a broader audience. There’s a pretty strong link between a perception that x group is being overly prioritised and well, that not actually remotely being the case. Jimmy brags about voting for sex pests in multiple countries, you can imagine the kind of people in his life that have convulsing fits of laughter about gay jokes.
Hey bro I identify as an attack helicopter probably still lands to this day lmao
|
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
On April 22 2026 22:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 21:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-) Nothing happened to it. Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 22:06 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:41 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:28 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 21:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. In the case of Alabama joining the NPVIC why would Alabamans expect their electors to vote for that, and not the ticket the people of Alabama the USA decided they should vote for? I don't think you can call these faithless electors either, although I'm sure there's going to be hundreds of court cases if the NPVIC actually happens. The electors are faithless if there is a procedure in place that is well understood, but then the electors decide to do something different. E.g. if the process enshrined in law in the state of Alabama is that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the state of Alabama", and the electorate of Alabama votes for Mr. Red, but the electors then go to Washington and cast their votes for Mr. Blue instead. But if the process itself changes, and the state of Alabaman enshrines in its loaw that "the electors of Alabama vote for the candidate chosen by majority rule in the entire nation", and while Mr. Red has a local majority in Alabama, Mr. Blue won nation-wide, then according to the very process determined by Alabama law, the electors should vote for Mr. Blue. But this is no doubt completely and utterly wrapped in complicated legalese and word-of-the-law vs spirit-of-the-law stuff that will feed armies of lawyers for decades to come if the NPVIC ever actually gets enacted. Do you think state legislatures have the plenary power to award electors to whoever they want to or not? What happened to "we're a republic, we're not a democracy"? ;-) On April 22 2026 21:35 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 21:11 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 17:44 oBlade wrote:On April 22 2026 15:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 22 2026 10:57 Razyda wrote:
Yes.
Alabama voters dont vote for president they vote for Alabama electors slates, and there is no such thing as popular election in US.
Only on paper. Remind me, what's the election called? Right, the presidential election. Who's campaigning for the votes of Alabamans? Presidential candidates. Who's on the ballot? Presidential candidates. Do you think that Alabamans know any names of the electors? You are so transparently full of shit you're just making yourself look like an idiot with those bad faith arguments. Alabamans expect their electors to vote for the ticket the people of Alabama decided they should vote for in the election Alabama runs - which is now enshrined in federal law as faithless electors have been more strictly outlawed. Why not cut out the anachronistic middle man? Because their side gets an unfair advantage. This is what it's all about. The Republicans won't admit it because lying is their second nature by now. I’m not referring to that aspect of the Electoral College, but the seemingly pointless symbolic ritual of having electors you technically vote for so that they can vote for what you voted for DOGE would have a field day with that one I'm saying they don't actually give a shit about the bolded. They only care about the unfair advantage. You misunderstand, no advantage is gained or lost because of that particular step, so why keep it? Electing electors to travel to Washington to codify how their state leaned made sense in ye olden days, it makes no sense to keep it. I’m referring specifically to that particular step in the process, which has long struck me as curious so I was wondering why it persists. Curious but somewhat functionally irrelevant. To my tastes a popular vote is preferable, you could still keep electors there, or you get rid of electors and have basically the current EC system which I consider worse. Having some intermediate layer just strikes me as completely redundant, not to the degree it annoys me because it basically doesn’t actually do anything Direct election was explicitly voted against at the constitutional convention. The EC is part of a broader compromise that led to how to balance the government. Changing it is possible but it's similar to saying why not make this part of the car out of tungsten, and this part of the car out of titanium, and this part of the car out of steel. Each can all sound good on their own on paper but at some point you have to figure out how to join the different parts together like welding the titanium to the steel somehow. It becomes less attractive when you look at the big picture. And not because the tungsten supporters have an unfair advantage or something. Kind of like how the fact that none of Europe except France directly elects their top person has nothing to do with some crackpot idea that the UK parliament was set up to favor the Tories.
Why do you need electors though?
They don’t functionally do anything, it’s not swapping tungsten out for something else, it’s having an extra layer of tungsten in the manufacturing process for no real reason in the contemporary process.
|
United States43934 Posts
On April 22 2026 22:57 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2026 22:38 WombaT wrote:On April 22 2026 22:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:
Jimmy exclusively consumes that media but doesn’t have anyone in his life to talk to and so he shows up here and interrupts whatever else is going on to demand to know why everyone (literally nobody in this topic) is talking about Noem’s crossdressing husband. Also, FYI, crossdresser isn’t a gender identity. i don't think the mmiwg part of mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ is a gender identity either. i'm not 100% on that though. I'm also not 100% on what all the letters mean in that 16 character acronym (usually saying that with the right delivery gets a laugh). i spitball stuff on here before i bring it into the real world. so far all my IRL mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ jokes have been a smash hit. On April 13 2026 02:18 KwarK wrote:For context, an indigenous Canadian woman drew attention to the systematic sexual violence inflicted upon her community. She added Missing & Murdered Indigenous Woman to other minorities who need awareness of the marginalization they’ve faced. The right wing influencerverse seized upon this as if it was outrageous and not basically the same as POWMIA flags and bumper stickers. + Show Spoiler + for context, i am well aware of all of this. how many times how you voted NDP? I've voted NDP 3 times. I've said this in the Canadian politics thread and i'll say it in here as well seeing as you brought it up. Canada needs a labour party because the NDP ain't it. The the 3 recent byelections their popular vote was 8%. As long as one of the NDP's top priorities is the mmiwg2slgbtqqia+ community these are the election results they will get. Also, if the NDP wants to be the national party it claims it has been since the days of Ed Broadbent they are going to have to ... some day... some how... learn how to speak french. Lee Gazan's latest idiot move got unanimously struck down in parliament. Ezra threw her the easiest soft ball possible and she swung and missed. The only thing Matt Walsh knows about the NDP is what his production staff at the Daily Wire tell him. I don't really go to Matt Walsh for the latest news on the NDP. Perhaps you do? Adding an extra letter to the prior LGBT acronym has been done to fucking death, it’s profoundly boring material. I’m sure your guido buddies love it but I’m sure there’s some open mics in your area where you can test it to a broader audience. There’s a pretty strong link between a perception that x group is being overly prioritised and well, that not actually remotely being the case. Jimmy brags about voting for sex pests in multiple countries, you can imagine the kind of people in his life that have convulsing fits of laughter about gay jokes.
I took it differently. I think he just doesn’t pick up on social cues. My assumption is he’ll try his material and people who have spent enough time around him will recognize the attempt at a joke and politely deflect before changing the subject. We all know people like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/y3is21o0yjug1.jpeg)
