Here Is One Way to Steal the Presidential Election (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 9 months ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The scenario we see as the most alarming was made possible by the Supreme Court itself. In a 2020 decision, the court held, in our reading, that state legislatures have the power to direct electors on how to cast their electoral votes. And this opens the door to what we think is the most dangerous strategy: that a legislature would pass a law that directs electors to vote for the candidate the legislature picks.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240124124427/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/22/opinion/election-president-steal-democracy.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] thesystemisdown@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

...NPV seems like a Swiss cheese solution that will never work.

It seems like a simple premise to me. The candidate with the most votes wins. What am I missing?

I do agree that efforts are best made elsewhere at this time. Sadly, that case can probably always be made, which is why we may never have a properly functioning democracy.

[-] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago

I feel like “efforts can be best made elsewhere” needs to be qualified with where that is

[-] thesystemisdown@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

It won't happen before November, and a lot is on the line. We can always do more than one thing at a time, but it's difficult to get anyone to do anything in the first place.

[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Change as you're describing will never happen if Republicans control any part of governemnt. Change also won't happen under Democrats unless it's aligned with corporate interests, tho, Democrats are conciliatory to social change once protesting starts to damage profitability.

I wish I were wrong about that, but that's the options we have. Authoritarian's backed by Big Oil or the public punching bag to oligarchical authoritarianism. Progressives might be moving the platform but the likelihood of public interest resulting in the passing of law is still statistically null, which has been quantifiably proven multiple times over the past 30 years.

We are free to spend our money on the things that keep us productive workers and that's it. In my eyes that's just slavery with more steps.

[-] Galapagon@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago

3rd party candidates still don't have a chance because they "can't get the votes" Ranked choice is basically npv, but I can have my first choice be the person I don't think will have enough, then fall back to the big parties as necessary.

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yes, it's attractive in its simplicity, but here are two pitfalls that come to mind:

Only blue states will enact it, so its reach will be limited
Unless controls against dropping out are somehow enshrined, it will only take one purple state to go red and drop out, nullifying the purpose

this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024

65 points (94.5% liked)

politics

19145 readers

4637 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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