The NPV may be closer than you think

[Concerned American]

The entire purpose of our "constitutional" democracy was to fix the flaws in democracy that failed to address the needs of the minority whose rights and voice are often stifled and even trampled by majority rule, I have no problem with a constitutional amendment to change our constitution, but this is just one more way white liberals have found to try and skirt the constitution...do it right or don't do it.

Good points. I'm also not so sure that the founders weren't on the right track when they set it up that the right to vote required land ownership. Truly land owners are the only folks who have skin in the game.

 

[Rogue AI]

I deny he won the majority of the popular vote.

The Constitution does not recognize your fantasy 'popular vote'. Try harder.

 

[Oddball]

No it won't. It is perfectly constitutional.

No it's not....This is like term limits; in order to get it you have to pass an amendment or change through and Article V Con Con....There's absolutely no provision in Article V -the one that deals with how to change the Constitution- for such a compact.

But you mob rule authoritarians keep swingin' away with your little pipe dream...You're not wasting any of my time, money, and energy.

 

[Clipper]

Not larger states----larger cities. Like NYC, LA, SF, Portland, Seattle, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit and DC. Just the type of uninformed voter that we want making decisions re: farming, ecology, water allocation, and resources. The NPV is DOA.

^^^^ This drivel from you who voted for the most corrupt, incompetent, deranged pile of shit who ever held ANY public office in the history of this country?

Nothing but a two- bit hustler, conman & cult leader who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

Now your boy is about to loot the Treasury for $400 million plus to pay for his gold plated ballroom, sucker. But just think, you'll get to drool over pics of it.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Good points. I'm also not so sure that the founders weren't on the right track when they set it up that the right to vote required land ownership. Truly land owners are the only folks who have skin in the game.

The Founders were not concerned about democracy.

They were concerned about property and representation for taxation. Democratic principles have evolved from the document and our history since 1787.

 

[jacksonlamb]

No it's not....This is like term limits; in order to get it you have to pass an amendment or change through and Article V Con Con....There's absolutely no provision in Article V -the one that deals with how to change the Constitution- for such a compact.

But you mob rule authoritarians keep swingin' away with your little pipe dream...You're not wasting any of my time, money, and energy.

Nope, a 50% plus one is not mob rule or voter authoritarianism.

If it were bad, the gerrymandering going on driven by both parties' need and greed for power would not be happening.

 

[g5000]

There was not a majority of the votes for Trump.

Trump did receive the most popular votes. Just not 50 percent.

 

[g5000]

In the past 100 years, only two people have won the presidency who lost the popular vote. Trump in 2016, and Bush in 2000.

In the past 235 years of presidential elections, there have been a total of five such instances.

Would Gore have gotten us into Iraq? Who knows.

Would the subprime and derivatives bubble have been avoided if Gore was in office? Nope!

Would Hillary have bungled the Covid pandemic as badly as Trump? I doubt it.

 

[Concerned American]

I deny he won the majority of the popular vote.

Was there any other candidate that received more votes than he did? You democrats will grasp at anything to gaslight your point--LOL, whatever makes you sleep better.

 

[Concerned American]

The Founders were not concerned about democracy.

They were concerned about property and representation for taxation. Democratic principles have evolved from the document and our history since 1787.

Once again for the ignorant. America is NOT a democracy. It is a republic, hence the line in the pledge that you abhor---"...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands." Try again.

 

[Rogue AI]

The Founders were not concerned about democracy.

They were concerned about property and representation for taxation. Democratic principles have evolved from the document and our history since 1787.

Get an amendment, your petty feelz aren't a legitimate Constitutional argument.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Get an amendment, your petty feelz aren't a legitimate Constitutional argument.

Don't need one. Anchor baby exclusion from citizenship does.

 

[Concerned American]

This drivel from you who voted for the most corrupt, incompetent, deranged pile of shit who ever held ANY public office in the history of this country?

Please get it through your thick skull---I didn't vote ^^^ for Biden.

Nothing but a two- bit hustler, conman

Your ^^^ self-deprecation doesn't disparage you nearly enough, junior.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Once again for the ignorant. America is NOT a democracy. It is a republic, hence the line in the pledge that you abhor---"...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands." Try again.

It has been a democratic republic from the beginning. And the pledge (1954) is proof of nothing.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Please get it through your thick skull---I didn't vote ^^^ for Biden.

Your ^^^ self-deprecation doesn't disparage you nearly enough, junior.

Yeah, you for Trump, the worst president in our history.

 

[Oddball]

Nope, a 50% plus one is not mob rule or voter authoritarianism.

 

[jacksonlamb]

View attachment 1252784

Yes, you are the fool ranting about American democracy.

Even Hillary would have been much better than this fool, Trump.

 

[Billiejeens]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-decades-long-plan-to-abolish-the-electoral-college-may-finally-pay-off/ar-AA22qrwV#comments

You folks on the right will go beserk if it happens.

The National Popular Vote Act may be in position to jump the shark this fall.

That means that it could put an end to the Electoral College and the excess of power that a minority of Americans have in several of the small states thwarting the will of the majority in the larger states.

The Electoral College — our nation’s bizarre system that hands a few narrowly-divided states the privilege to choose our presidents — has been entrenched for two centuries.

But a long-game effort from reformers, which has played out quietly in blue states across the country over the past 20 years, has gotten it surprisingly close to toppling.

Throughout the 20th century, it was believed that the only chance for nationwide Electoral College reform was a constitutional amendment, and there was a real bipartisan push to do so after the 1968 election, endorsed by President Richard Nixon. Third-party candidate George Wallace’s strength in the South had risked depriving Nixon of his electoral vote majority, meaning the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives would have determined the outcome. Despite initial momentum in Congress for a popular vote, a trio of segregationist Southerners filibustered the proposed amendment to death in 1970 with help from senators in smaller states.

The 2000 election, in which Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush was declared the winner in the decisive state of Florida after much controversy, rejuvenated interest in reform. Democrats were of course furious that Bush won, but much of the country believed it was absurd that a 537-vote margin in a single state determined the outcome. Polls showed a large majority of respondents supporting a move to a popular vote system by constitutional amendment. But amending the Constitution is toweringly difficult; ratification requires the backing of 38 states.


An alternative route was that the states could do it themselves — states could simply pledge their own electoral votes to the popular vote winner. The problem there was that if states stuck their necks out to go first, they’d be throwing away their influence under the current system. So several experts and thinkers batted around the idea of a trigger mechanism — a state law that wouldn’t go into effect until the 270-electoral-vote threshold was reached.

After the 2004 election once again came down to a single swing state, John R. Koza had had enough. A computer scientist who had become wealthy from a lottery ticket business (he co-invented the scratch-off ticket), Koza told me he “got all agitated about the fact that Ohio was the key state that reelected George W. Bush, and the rest of the country was basically ignored, including California” — his home state.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Koza had gone from state to state trying to get state lotteries established; if multiple states wanted to work together on a single lottery, they’d create an interstate compact. Koza believed the same device — a binding agreement — could work for Electoral College reform. So in 2006, he launched National Popular Vote Inc., which was (and remains) the major group lobbying for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact around the country.

And a blue wave in the 2026 midterms could finish the job.

• Since 2006, a plan to change the US presidential elections to a popular vote — by getting states controlling 270+ electoral votes to pledge their electors to the popular vote winner — has been gaining support in blue states.
• The 2026 midterms could sweep Democrats to power in enough swing states to cross that threshold, potentially putting a popular vote system in place for 2028.
• But there are legal, practical, and political questions about what, exactly, would replace the Electoral College — and whether carrying out this reform without GOP support could doom it to failure.

The big idea is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and it’s essentially one weird trick for moving to a popular vote system without a constitutional amendment.

How it works is that each participating state agrees that their electors will go to the candidate who wins the highest number of votes nationwide — if, and only if, enough other states agree so that the outcome will be determined that way.

View attachment 1252698

And, if so, yowza!!!

you are crazy
really.

 

[jacksonlamb]

you are crazy
really.

How?

 

[Oddball]

Yes, you are the fool ranting about American democracy.

Even Hillary would have been much better than this fool, Trump.

You obviously don't know your ass from a hot rock, as to the construction of the Constitution and the American republic.