2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Tarsonis]

Well ya but that’s why you say the presidential election will be determined by a two round election. And have the House of Representatives elected by either single district PR or MMP and the sentate gets elected by STV with 5 senators per state

Yes, but only the abolition or alteration of the EC is feasible at the moment, with Delaware and New Mexico joining the compact, it's up to 189.

It's not feasible. It would require a constitutional amendment, and the Republicans would never let that happen.

[The Feylands]

Would be cool if the first woman president would be a Conservative. And a minority to boot.

Maybe Nikki Haley could neatly fill that role.

[Tarsonis]

Would be cool if the first woman president would be a Conservative. And a minority to boot.

Maybe Nikki Haley could neatly fill that role.

She's prepping for 2024

[Vassenor]

This is pleasing to me. The Democrats are learning from their 2016 blunder. Hopefully they can wing it this time.

Phone poll of only a thousand people.

At some point pollsters really need to update their methods.

So what makes their sample problematic?

[Valrifell]

Yes, but only the abolition or alteration of the EC is feasible at the moment, with Delaware and New Mexico joining the compact, it's up to 189.

It's not feasible. It would require a constitutional amendment, and the Republicans would never let that happen.

There have been no (successful) legal challenges against the popular vote compact. In as far most can see, it's perfectly fine in the same way states binding electors to their individual popular votes is fine.

[Shrillland]

Yes, but only the abolition or alteration of the EC is feasible at the moment, with Delaware and New Mexico joining the compact, it's up to 189.

It's not feasible. It would require a constitutional amendment, and the Republicans would never let that happen.

Actually, it doesn't require that at all. The National Interstate Popular Vote Compact is already law in quite a few states, and once they get up to 270 electoral votes, all the states in the compact will cast their votes for whomever wins the national popular vote.

[United States of Devonta]

Yes, but only the abolition or alteration of the EC is feasible at the moment, with Delaware and New Mexico joining the compact, it's up to 189.

It's not feasible. It would require a constitutional amendment, and the Republicans would never let that happen.

That's why you actively advocate and fight for what you believe in. Bring it to the forefront, sell your idea. Popular vote is growing in popularity as more people advocate for it.

Laying down and saying its impossible have never achieved a thing.

[Tarsonis]

It's not feasible. It would require a constitutional amendment, and the Republicans would never let that happen.

That's why you actively advocate and fight for what you believe in. Bring it to the forefront, sell your idea. Popular vote is growing in popularity as more people advocate for it.

Laying down and saying its impossible have never achieved a thing.

It's not growing in popularity, it's tracking among bitter democrats

[United States of Devonta]

That's why you actively advocate and fight for what you believe in. Bring it to the forefront, sell your idea. Popular vote is growing in popularity as more people advocate for it.

Laying down and saying its impossible have never achieved a thing.

It's not growing in popularity, it's tracking among bitter democrats

Over 50% of Americans support it. And correction, it has had more support in the past. But always above 50%.

Once more main stream politicians brace onto it. It'll cont. to grow.

[Tarsonis]

It's not growing in popularity, it's tracking among bitter democrats

Over 50% of Americans support it. And correction, it has had more support in the past. But always above 50%.

Once more main stream politicians brace onto it. It'll cont. to grow.

It hasn't actually. Support for abolishing the EC has hovered around 55% for the last 7 years. Originally republicans supported abolishing it because of stronghold states like California and NY, but quickly changed their tune when it became their avenue to power. Democrats are only backing it now because they lost. They're tired of losing, so rather than find winning strategies they want to change the rules. The two popular initiatives are to expand the SCOTUS and abolish the EC. Gee I wonder why.

The Amendment Process is a long and brutal one. Don't expect a change anytime soon. Oh and that Compact won't likely stand up in court either.

[Shrillland]

Over 50% of Americans support it. And correction, it has had more support in the past. But always above 50%.

Once more main stream politicians brace onto it. It'll cont. to grow.

It hasn't actually. Support for abolishing the EC has hovered around 55% for the last 7 years. Originally republicans supported abolishing it because of stronghold states like California and NY, but quickly changed their tune when it became their avenue to power. Democrats are only backing it now because they lost. They're tired of losing, so rather than find winning strategies they want to change the rules. The two popular initiatives are to expand the SCOTUS and abolish the EC. Gee I wonder why.

The Amendment Process is a long and brutal one. Don't expect a change anytime soon. Oh and that Compact won't likely stand up in court either.

Why not? The constitution says that the states decide how the electors are chosen, it doesn't say they have to follow the will of the voters in each state. Each election always has a few rebels in the college.

[Tarsonis]

Nobody really opposes the EC on principle, they oppose it for self service. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Hillary Clinton won the EC but lost the Popular vote, Democrats would be out in spades praising founders genius for the EC being the mechanism to stop a guy like Trump from becoming president.

[Shrillland]

Nobody really opposes the EC on principle, they oppose it for self service. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Hillary Clinton won the EC but lost the Popular vote, Democrats would be out in spades praising founders genius for the EC being the mechanism to stop a guy like Trump from becoming president.

SOme would, yeah. To be quite honest, I do still believe in some of the ideas behind the electoral college, but I also won't stand in the way if we go to a national popular vote.

[United States of Devonta]

Over 50% of Americans support it. And correction, it has had more support in the past. But always above 50%.

Once more main stream politicians brace onto it. It'll cont. to grow.

It hasn't actually. Support for abolishing the EC has hovered around 55% for the last 7 years. Originally republicans supported abolishing it because of stronghold states like California and NY, but quickly changed their tune when it became their avenue to power. Democrats are only backing it now because they lost. They're tired of losing, so rather than find winning strategies they want to change the rules. The two popular initiatives are to expand the SCOTUS and abolish the EC. Gee I wonder why.

The Amendment Process is a long and brutal one. Don't expect a change anytime soon. Oh and that Compact won't likely stand up in court either.

What are you talking about? Winning strategies? The Dems won back-to-back elections. And all signs point to a victory in 2020 w/ Trumps terrible approval in the Rust Belt? Also, the Dem convention in Milwaukee shows a tilt in focus back to the Rust Belt for Democrats. And I do mind you, the DNC focused there in 2018 w/ very good results.

But switching to PV would force Repubs to better improve their strategies (finally) sense they hardly ever win it. Only once sense 1992. oh and voter suppression would be weakened.

The Dems on the other hand have managed to win the Electoral College sense 1992, a few times.

[Vassenor]

Nobody really opposes the EC on principle, they oppose it for self service. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Hillary Clinton won the EC but lost the Popular vote, Democrats would be out in spades praising founders genius for the EC being the mechanism to stop a guy like Trump from becoming president.

In the same way Trump railed against the EC when it looked like Obama would take office without winning the popular vote but had no issues doing the same.

[Ism]

Over 50% of Americans support it. And correction, it has had more support in the past. But always above 50%.

Once more main stream politicians brace onto it. It'll cont. to grow.

It hasn't actually. Support for abolishing the EC has hovered around 55% for the last 7 years. Originally republicans supported abolishing it because of stronghold states like California and NY, but quickly changed their tune when it became their avenue to power. Democrats are only backing it now because they lost. They're tired of losing, so rather than find winning strategies they want to change the rules. The two popular initiatives are to expand the SCOTUS and abolish the EC. Gee I wonder why.

The Amendment Process is a long and brutal one. Don't expect a change anytime soon. Oh and that Compact won't likely stand up in court either.

So, a majority of Americans have supported this for 7 years, but Democrats are only supporting it because they lost an election 2 years ago? Do you see the problem here?

[United States of Devonta]

It hasn't actually. Support for abolishing the EC has hovered around 55% for the last 7 years. Originally republicans supported abolishing it because of stronghold states like California and NY, but quickly changed their tune when it became their avenue to power. Democrats are only backing it now because they lost. They're tired of losing, so rather than find winning strategies they want to change the rules. The two popular initiatives are to expand the SCOTUS and abolish the EC. Gee I wonder why.

The Amendment Process is a long and brutal one. Don't expect a change anytime soon. Oh and that Compact won't likely stand up in court either.

So, a majority of Americans have supported this for 7 years, but Democrats are only supporting it because they lost an election 2 years ago? Do you see the problem here?

As far back as 1988 actually. I don't know before that.

[Ism]

So, a majority of Americans have supported this for 7 years, but Democrats are only supporting it because they lost an election 2 years ago? Do you see the problem here?

As far back as 1988 actually. I don't know before that.

As a far as I know majority support for a popular vote goes back at least to 1968. I was just using his timetable for simplicity’s sake.

[Tarsonis]

It hasn't actually. Support for abolishing the EC has hovered around 55% for the last 7 years. Originally republicans supported abolishing it because of stronghold states like California and NY, but quickly changed their tune when it became their avenue to power. Democrats are only backing it now because they lost. They're tired of losing, so rather than find winning strategies they want to change the rules. The two popular initiatives are to expand the SCOTUS and abolish the EC. Gee I wonder why.

The Amendment Process is a long and brutal one. Don't expect a change anytime soon. Oh and that Compact won't likely stand up in court either.

Why not? The constitution says that the states decide how the electors are chosen, it doesn't say they have to follow the will of the voters in each state. Each election always has a few rebels in the college.

Such a compact would usurp the rights of Electors. When votes are cast in each state, the votes are cast for electors which are appointed by the parties. The Compact would strip the electors of their roles, forcing them to vote a certain way.

[Valrifell]

Why not? The constitution says that the states decide how the electors are chosen, it doesn't say they have to follow the will of the voters in each state. Each election always has a few rebels in the college.

Such a compact would usurp the rights of Electors. When votes are cast in each state, the votes are cast for electors which are appointed by the parties. The Compact would strip the electors of their roles, forcing them to vote a certain way.

States already have legislation binding their electors to their popular vote and eliminating bad-faith electors.

You really don't have a legal standing, and as I've mentioned the compact has already stood up to a few legal challenges.

[Ism]

Why not? The constitution says that the states decide how the electors are chosen, it doesn't say they have to follow the will of the voters in each state. Each election always has a few rebels in the college.

Such a compact would usurp the rights of Electors. When votes are cast in each state, the votes are cast for electors which are appointed by the parties. The Compact would strip the electors of their roles, forcing them to vote a certain way.

The majority of states already bind how their electors vote in some way.

[Tarsonis]

Such a compact would usurp the rights of Electors. When votes are cast in each state, the votes are cast for electors which are appointed by the parties. The Compact would strip the electors of their roles, forcing them to vote a certain way.

States already have legislation binding their electors to their popular vote and eliminating bad-faith electors.

You really don't have a legal standing, and as I've mentioned the compact has already stood up to a few legal challenges.

Such a compact would usurp the rights of Electors. When votes are cast in each state, the votes are cast for electors which are appointed by the parties. The Compact would strip the electors of their roles, forcing them to vote a certain way.

The majority of states already bind how their electors vote in some way.

Faithless elector laws are only enforceable once the vote is cast. Their votes still stand, but they get fined. The Compact is different in that it disenfranchises the electors.

And the Compact has only been theoretically challenged, it hasn't been tested in court in terms of effects.

[Ism]

States already have legislation binding their electors to their popular vote and eliminating bad-faith electors.

You really don't have a legal standing, and as I've mentioned the compact has already stood up to a few legal challenges.

The majority of states already bind how their electors vote in some way.

Faithless elector laws are only enforceable once the vote is cast. Their votes still stand, but they get fined. The Compact is different in that it disenfranchises the electors.

And the Compact has only been theoretically challenged, it hasn't been tested in court in terms of effects.

Some states void faithless votes, actually. And I don’t see how it disenfranchises the electors anymore than current laws do, nor why that even matters.

[Thermodolia]

Nobody really opposes the EC on principle, they oppose it for self service. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Hillary Clinton won the EC but lost the Popular vote, Democrats would be out in spades praising founders genius for the EC being the mechanism to stop a guy like Trump from becoming president.

I do. I oppose the EC on principle. If Clinton had won by EC I’d want it gone just the same

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Nobody really opposes the EC on principle, they oppose it for self service. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Hillary Clinton won the EC but lost the Popular vote, Democrats would be out in spades praising founders genius for the EC being the mechanism to stop a guy like Trump from becoming president.

I do. I oppose the EC on principle. If Clinton had won by EC I’d want it gone just the same

Pfft, elections...

We could dispense of such trivial mediums and go straight to direct rule from the people!