Tuesday’s wave election swept Democrats into power in Congress. But the most seismic result for American politics and democracy may come out of the battleground states where Democrats just won trifecta control by taking both state houses and the governor’s mansion: Come January, Democratic legislators will have the votes to elect the next president by the popular vote.
State lawmakers could circumvent the Electoral College by enacting what’s known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under the current system, each state gets a set number of electors, and the candidate who wins enough states to accumulate at least 270 electoral votes becomes president. This system allows the winner of the popular vote to lose, as Al Gore did in 2000 and Hillary Clinton again in 2016. But the NPVIC would bypass the Electoral College, with each state that enacts the compact awarding its electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact would only take effect once states representing a majority of electoral votes sign on, ensuring that the winner of the national popular vote becomes president.
In April, Virginia became the 18th state to join the compact, bringing the total number of electoral votes pledged under the proposal to 222. On Tuesday, Democrats took trifecta control of state governments in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada. That’s 61 electoral votes. Add in Alaska, where late-arriving votes are still being counted, and that’s 64. With Virginia on board, only 48 more votes are needed for the compact to reach 270 votes and take effect. The emerging math means there is a real chance that the next president is selected based on the national popular vote.
Heaven forfend! The person who gets the most votes wins? That’s antithetical to democracy and must be stopped.
Trump won the popular vote in 2024 though.
All Democrats have to do is not suck, and they will never lose an election again. But this is OK too, I guess.
The problem is how much power is put into the hands of one person, not how that one person is selected. Sure, it would be a slightly better if we had a slightly more fair way of selecting the president but it would be much better to break up the position into multiple positions. It would be much better to eliminate some of those powers altogether. It would be much better if it were more practical to hold those individuals responsible for the crimes they commit while in office. I’m not holding out hope that a popular vote will be a panacea cause occasionally awful people are the popular candidate and what then?
But the popular vote means areas with more population, like Texas and California, will have more say in who becomes president than, Rhode Island or Wyoming. Values and concerns can vary greatly to the point of complete opposites.
In Canada the Toronto area has 25% of Canada’s population and is often looked at with eye rolls because those filthy big city-dwellers have no idea how the other 75% live, and definately not the 25% of rural Canadians.
Popular, schmopular.
In truth, the EC disenfranchises 90% of the population because they live in states that are overwhelmingly red or blue. Why bother voting red in California? Or blue in Kansas?
A pact like this could actually change the voting patterns in those states.
That’s why we have the senate, to give states proportionate power. This gives disproportionate power to rural welfare queen farmers.
And since we have the house of reps that hasn’t expanded in far too long, the house of reps gives disproportionate power to rural welfare queen farmers.
If the presidency switches to popular vote, it’ll be the only of the 3 that actually represents the majority.
Go do you fascist shit in Canada you fucking Canadian fascist fuck. Fuck yourself.
Land doesn’t deserve representation, people do. Anyways, variations in values and concerns don’t generally follow state boundaries anyways.
That’s not what it means at all. They’re going to look at all votes cast throughout the country and whoever has more will get their electoral votes. State population has no bearing at all.
i mean, someone “winning” is antithetical to democracy.
In a REAL democracy, we only win if we ALL win
Previous post: https://beehaw.org/post/29306774
It’s going to get held up in the courts. There’s a provision in the constitution that says states can’t enter into agreements or compacts with each other without the federal government’s approval.
There’s also a provision that says state legislatures can select electoral college delegates by any means they choose, this is objectively constitutional imo. The supreme court will probably reject it, but fuck 'em. The current court is corrupt and illegitimate anyway.
Yes, in this case, the two parts of the constitution seem to conflict with each other, so it’s unclear which one prevails.
In practical terms, though, there will be lawsuits about this, and probably injunctions blocking it from happening until the cases are heard. And because it’s an important case that deals with core constitutional framework and has clear federal jurisdiction, it will probably end up in front of the Supreme Court.
And given how politically biased the current Supreme Court is, I wouldn’t be too optimistic about the states prevailing in this case. The constitution could be interpreted either way – either as explicitly allowing this or explicitly prohibiting this. And a biased Supreme Court will happily interpret it in the way that helps their political party in future elections.
If Texas his truly gone blue though, the only path for Republican victory is popular vote. I’m not sure how the biased courts would rule, but if theyre scared of Texas staying flipped then it’d behoove them to allow the popular vote to pass
Getting there would already be something I think. But you have a point.
Where’s that again? Got a citation handy?
Article 1 section 10
And, how many other sections of the same “sacred” document have been ignored, bent, and/or broken outright by this regime so far? I’m not certain The People GAF about due process from a regime that kidnaps, disappears, and openly murders innocents, vets, whomever at will, and hasn’t answered for any of it.
Dunno. Maybe those same courts might catch the clue that further injustices on their part might help those same paid-for “justices” into being an example to their peers? Dunno, but historically speaking, even the simp puppets and fuck pockets of any regime don’t tend to have a long shelf-life when The People’ve had enough of said regime’s wanton criminality.
No antagonism intended. I genuinely feel that this is a likely concern they’re floating behind their closed chamber doors, over lunch tables, in their homes, etc. as their long-standing corruption begins to lose its deniability.
In not sure what you’re getting at. But I do hope the American people can wake up at some point and get back control
