It would also probably be a constant battle to keep it in effect anyway, because every state that has entered the compact can always leave. As long as you can shut off the compact by removing one or two states from it, it will be an unstable mess.
I don’t know what country you are from or how your voting system works. But I will guess that your country has many parties and after the election, a governing coalition is formed.
In the US voting system, similar parties get punished by stealing votes from each other. So, in effect, we have to form our coalitions before the election and choose the single candidate that will stand for all of us. So, you can think of the Democratic Party as the Democratic Coalition, made up of some truly left-wing factions, as well as some not very left-wing or even centrist factions, and so our candidate will be much more watered down than what you’d see in a different system.
Also might cause Trump to publicly obsess over it which certainly doesn’t help him in any way
Are you aware of what is minimally required in order to pull off this kind of change? There is no outcome to this election that will result in the Democrats having even the faintest possibility of doing this.
I don’t know if you realize how condescending it sounds to hear you say you “don’t want to ruin whatever enjoyment she gets out of it” by telling her… what? That you arbitrarily look down on the use of this absolutely grammatical construction?
The thing that bothers me most about stuff like this is that it is effectively some kind of “gotcha” that makes people feel foolish, like their natural, completely grammatical speech has errors, or something they should feel bad about.
The worst kind of grammar pedant: the one who is passionate about a “rule” that is actually only a style recommendation.
This is probably a fool’s errand, because it’s all or nothing, making it inherently unstable. If we ever get within striking distance of having enough states to cross the threshold, the law will be fought tooth and nail to prevent passage, and this battle would continue in perpetuity in every remotely purple state that has the NPVIC law in place, trying to get enough overturned to stop it.
Maybe it accomplishes something useful simply by bringing the conversation about reform to the forefront? But as an actual solution I’m completely skeptical, as much as I like the idea.
“How do I help my uncle Jack off a horse?”
A problem with this question is that the US is such a big and diverse place, that you could have this same question posed to Americans only, asking about their experience visiting other parts of the US.
You think an American wouldn’t also regard that interaction as weird?
Do I just live in a weird bubble? I live in the US and I am rarely at someone’s house who doesn’t remove their shoes nowadays. I certainly grew up wearing shoes at home, but that’s changed significantly over the past 20 years or so.
Yeah, I always wonder how often there’s a need to refer to inhabitants of two continents together as a single entity. Like, if you say someone is South American or North American, that is never confused with being someone specifically from the US. When would those terms be insufficient?
Don’t you mean “from AND into”?
When they announced the ads it was just the incentive I needed to quit Prime totally. I don’t miss it. I already was wary of buying from Amazon due to the sketchy sellers and fake products, so I’m glad buying my stuff elsewhere except when I can’t find something somewhere else, which has been rare.
Even subject pronouns are certainly used in everyday speech, even if less often compared to English.
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.
This 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.
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.
And here I thought it was not having the needed amount of votes that caused her to lose.
I’m sick of people blaming Hillary‘s campaign for all the horrible shit that ensued afterwards. Candidates campaign because it is in their best interest to do so, but at the end of the day, this is our government. It’s our job as citizens to educate ourselves on the candidates, the voting system, and the stakes of the election. We should be figuring out who best to vote for, whether they are good at campaigning or not.
So, while Hillary might have won with a better campaign, the blame for Trump getting into power firmly rests with the voting public. We knew what kind of person Trump was before he was elected, and we knew there was a vacant Supreme Court seat.
Don’t blame it on the fact that people weren’t manipulated well enough by a giant ad campaign.