6·
10 hours agoThis only solves it if you also make the number of delegates for each state be proportional to its population size. California has 68 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times the number of electoral votes.
- 0 Posts
- 165 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 10th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
The thing is that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is nothing until it’s all the way there. Having 95% of the necessary electoral votes has the same effect as 0. So there’s no reason for opponents to even care about it until it is within striking distance of the threshold. It seems to me that if we ever reach a point where it comes down to just a state or two, that legislation will be fought tooth and nail, not just in those last states, but there will be fights and legal challenges in states that have already entered the compact to reverse it too. And even if we manage to win the fight and it gets activated, we will still have to keep fighting in perpetuity because almost any state pulling out would undo the whole thing.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t even try, maybe some good comes of it regardless. It just doesn’t seem like a solution as much as a statement.
171·5 days agoBelieve it or not some people may not have been investing significant amounts of time into learning about Elon Musk’s personality in 2014
This is the ignorant “I don’t understand statistics” take. If Nate Silver had given Clinton a 100% chance to win, then maybe you’d have some sort of point. But, in fact, the 538 projection gave Trump a much higher chance than most of the major election models, to the point that I remember Nate having to defend himself against angry people on Twitter over and over. He wrote an article ahead of the election pointing out that if an outcome has a 30% chance of happening, not only is it possible, but in fact you expect it to happen 3 in 10 times. I was very nervous on Election Day 2016 specifically because I had been closely following 538 projections.
It makes logical sense for a person to draw this conclusion, but MTG is famously an idiot, so that’s what’s baffling. What convinced her to change her tune?
The name “pro-life” is absurd. Too far from reality
I think you all need a new name for yourselves. It sounds absurd at this point
I’ve noted that you are a superior human who doesn’t waste your time with celebrity nonsense. I assume that’s what you were going for with this comment.
If true, that would be exactly why you would need more than the exact bare minimum number of Democrats for what you want to accomplish, so that one or two can’t make a name for themselves by gumming up the works.
When the 270 mark is passed, it has the effect of making every vote equal everywhere.
Right, and this is bad for the Republican Party, so they will do everything in their power to stop it.
2·17 days agoBill Clinton never debated George W Bush
What kind of Dem candidate is pro fracking?
One who exists in a fucked up electoral system where the entire fate of our country rests upon a few thousand votes in western PA.
I love the concept of it, but the thing about the NPVIC is that it’s 0% of the way there until it’s 100% of the way there. So while 77% seems like we’re close, and there is legislation pending that could get us to 95%, the only reason it seems to be going forward steadily is that it does nothing unless you go all the way.
The moment there is the prospect of legislation in a state that would get that last 5%, not only will that legislation be fought tooth and nail, but every state that has already entered the compact will have to fight like hell to keep it in place, not once but constantly forever. Because if you’re just over the threshold then almost any state backing out of the compact will nullify the whole thing again.
It seems too fragile to be a workable solution. But I guess I don’t see anything wrong with trying!
thoughtful people
There’s your problem right there
5·27 days agoWhen I have it integrated into my development environment a la Copilot, predicting the next block of code I’m going to write (which I can use if it is relevant and ignore if not), I find it to be a huge timesaver.
I think you replied to the wrong post
I think the very important point you’re missing is that schools did not exist in fear of school shootings before Columbine. There were no lockdown drills and crazy security measures for entering and leaving the building. So making a big loud noise would not make people instantly think someone was shooting up the school like it very well might today.
1·29 days ago“You” and “thou” come from different roots. They are not simply different orthographies like “ye” and “the”.
I’m not sure what you mean. Of course it’s never happened because we’ve never done it that way.
If you’re saying that if you go back and calculate previous elections, then it never would have made a difference, that doesn’t mean it could not happen. Growing up I learned that there was only one time in history that the popular vote didn’t match the EC, but now it’s become a constant threat. If it becomes a viable path then eventually it is bound to be exploited.
What you are talking about simply isn’t functionally equivalent to just straight up popular vote, for the reason I described. Votes are not worth the same amount in different places.