• Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Doesn’t matter. Ending the electoral college would require an amendment, and amendments require 3/4 of states to approve them. Abolishing the electoral college benefits California and the smallest states that expect to always side with California no matter what, which doesn’t get you to the 38 states required.

      • BlackPenguins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        It would not. There is already a pact with a bunch of states that say once they have enough support they will put their electoral votes towards the popular vote of the country not the popular vote of their state. If enough states get on board the EC becomes powerless. Because the states determine how they vote.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

        They are getting close. A couple more states needed for activation.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          And if and when it gets passed, the conservative scotus, which has constantly ruled in favor of states rights being nearly unlimited and that precedent or other writings about the cotus don’t count, will buck both these trends and vote that this violates the cotus based on some obscure writing by some founding father.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Doesn’t end it, merely does an end run around it. Also unlikely to ever take effect, because to get to 270 electoral votes worth of states supporting it you’re going to need to get states on board with it who will directly lose influence and/or who generally don’t vote in line with California and moving to the winner being decided by national popular vote (whether directly or by using it to pledge electors) essentially makes the result largely determined by turnout in California (both times in recent history the popular vote and electoral vote were not in alignment, the margin for the national popular vote was smaller than the margin in California).

          It’s a lower bar to reach than actually ending the electoral college, but it’s unlikely to succeed for essentially the same reason - you have to get multiple states that will essentially lose any influence over the executive branch if they approve it to approve it.

        • Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I read that last part as, “A couple more states needed for Activision” and my blood pressure temporarily spiked lol.

      • goatmeal@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yea you’re right. I just thought it was funny that a majority of Americans disprove of something that prevents a majority of Americans from being able to choose something

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Fair enough. There’s an interstate compact that’s been joined by several states that does an end run around the electoral college (all member states agree to give their electors to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of their state’s votes once 270 electoral votes worth of states join). That’s a lower bar than the 3/4 of states needed for an amendment, but will also inevitably face a legal challenge regarding needing federal approval as an interstate compact.

          It’s still…several states away from going into effect for basically the same reason an amendment on this won’t pass - it benefits California and the smallest states that expect to always side with California, which isn’t enough to get to 270 electoral votes.

          • goatmeal@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            That’s interesting. Do you know which states haven’t yet joined/would be the most likely to flip to get to the total?

      • Lumisal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Wha?.. Math hard you go ungabunga? California population has 38 million. That’s only 8 million more than Texas.

        Also, voting wouldn’t be by state anyway, so it wouldn’t matter? Not all 38 million Californians will vote the exact same way.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Err, ending the electoral college requires a constitutional amendment. Proposing a constitutional amendment requires either 2/3 of state legislatures or 2/3 of both houses of Congress to set in motion and requires 3/4 of states to approve. This is why the ERA was never ratified - it only got 31 states.