this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
680 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3581 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The way elections are run Is mostly up to the states. The electoral college, though, is stipulated in the Constitution.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So is a method to change the Constitution.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That really is the only way to get rid of the electoral college.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That's not exactly true. Each state could choose to give their votes to the candidate that wins the national vote. Then the electoral college system would still exist on paper but in reality wouldn't be relevant to the outcome.

I think it would be better to amend the Constitution. But it's not the only way to make popular vote reality.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The states changing their electors outside their popular vote is exactly what Trump was trying to do.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

And they’re gearing up for version 2.0. Shit’s gonna get weird in a few months.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That sounds scary, but you gotta be precise. Trump was trying to do that after the fact, which would be a coup d'etat. In reality, many states have reasonably made changes over time before elections. Did you know that two states aren't winner-take-all, and that this has changed over time? Wild!

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I was hoping for more from you. You wrote something that sounded scary but was actually misleading. You could have corrected yourself, because there's value to what you were trying to communicate. Facts are important, my friend.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I can see you have long term feelings. I do not. I wasn't attempting to scare, I simply stated the truth. As such, there is nothing to "correct", as you say. I suggest you go on your merry way, as will I.

[–] set_secret@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Are you suggesting with say....an amendment?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Or we could ratio it out of existence. If we had 10,000 representatives then the EC would match the popular vote results.