politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
To be fair, this is talking about the number of state governments that have flipped, not Federal.
I did miss that nuance, but not sure it impacts the ability of the parties to do something this radical.
The allusion is to the state-level pact several states have made to always assign their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state. With Texas and other flipping, that makes enough states to be over 270 votes, meaning if all those new blue state governments join the compact, the EC essentially doesn't matter anymore.
And it doesn't need to include Texas
On Tuesday, Democrats took control of state legislatures and governorships in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada, all states that haven’t agreed to the compact. If all five vote to join, then the total number of electoral votes apportioned based on the national popular vote jumps to 283.
I am enlightened! Appreciate the response.
Any thoughts on how binding such a pact is?
Bad news there I'm afraid, some people think it might even be unconstitutional, but because it's never triggered it's never been tested. It's probably a safe bet that if it ever did trigger the Republicans would set their own children on fire summoning the best lawyers hell can offer.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says how states must choose their electors based on the outcome of the vote, whether it's by districts or statewide, and it says nothing about how or whether electors are allocated to the runners-up. In fact, it just says it's up to the states how they conduct their elections. The only requirement (not in the original text of the Constitution for Senators) is that they hold elections.
That might not prevent the Extreme Supremes from making shit up, as they did with presidential immunity, but apart from that kind of fuckery, it should be fine.
That kind of fuckery is exactly the problem we're facing though, which is why this is tenuous.