comment: >
  
  
  Whoever gets the most votes wins. 
  
  Republicans: Sounds communist to me.
context: Will not happen short of some unforeseen political realignment since this is the only way a GOP candidate can win the presidency at this point >
  
  But the EC could be nullified via the NPVIC, which can be adopted state-by-state, and just ratified by Congress via the normal legislative process.
  So, right now, only a few more states need to adopt it, and Congress could ratify it right now, before the GOP House majority takes over in the new Congress a week from tomorrow. Then, as soon as enough states signed on, it would be effective, and the GOP would have no means to block it. >
  
  Leaving aside that there’s no way that bill survives a filibuster, even if it was passed and enough states committed to make it work then SCOTUS  will take up some case from voters in Idaho who say it violates there first amendment rights. The legitimacy of that sort of case is irrelevant for this court, they can just throw out laws they don’t like. >
  
  
  SCOTUS will take up some case from voters in Idaho who say it violates there first amendment rights
  
  Huh. What does this have to do with the 1st amendment? If it's deemed unconstitutional, it would violate the Compact Clause of the Constitution since States cannot enter into agreements with each other without the consent of Congress >
  
  Did you finish reading my comment? The justification for anything SCOTUS does has gone out the window. They will invent whichever ruling gets them what they want. >
  
  
  . They will invent whichever ruling gets them what they want
  
  In which decision did they invent a rationale for a ruling? >
  
  Dobbs >
  
  I'm personally pro-choice, but I'd argue its the opposite. The Constitution doesn't protect abortion even if we personally support it. 
  Given how Kentucky, Montana, and Kansas have voted against abortion bans, it seems likely that we can democratically protect abortion rights. >
  
  The constitution regards all liberties not defined within it to be either the property of the states or the people. That is explicit and textual. English Common Law, the basis for American Common Law, makes it very clear that the right of a woman to recieve an abortion is legal for up to 5 months (20 weeks) and would only become a felonious crime after 6 months (24 weeks). Roe codified that an individuals choice was based on the idea of personal liberty in that period. Logically it cannot be otherwise. Precedent going back to the 18th century makes it clear that abortion is legally permissible with certain limitations and is thus a liberty. The constitution grants liberties beyond its strictest dictates to the people and the states. In Dobbs, the court rejected personal liberties and centuries of precedent to side with a guy who literally had "witches" executed.  Furthermore, do you know what else the constitution doesn't explicitly protect? The Environment. Guess the EPA is unconstitutional, same for the National Parks, or fish and wildlife. Also, if the court wishes to be literalists, then they should refuse to strike down laws. After all, nowhere in the constitution does it say the courts have the right to strike down laws made by legislatures. >
  
  
  The constitution regards all liberties not defined within it to be either the property of the states or the people.
  
  Correct. That is the 10th amendment, which would allow states to enact abortion restrictions. I personally am very pro-choice, which is why I voted entirely Democratic this year so that my politicians would not enact abortion restrictions. The Constitution does not prohibit states from enacting abortion restrictions. 
  
  English Common Law, the basis for American Common Law, makes it very clear that the right of a woman to recieve an abortion is legal for up to 5 months (20 weeks)
  
  There were no such English law when we gained independence from the British. The English made abortion a RIGHT in 1967. Given that we weren't a British colony in 1967, why would that have any bearing on American law? 
  
  Roe codified that an individuals choice was based on the idea of personal liberty in that period
  
  Ok and the Lochner era Court ruled that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional because they infringed on people's personal liberty to choose to work for less than the minimum wage. Do you think that the SCOTUS was correct in striking down minimum wage laws? I think SCOTUS was wrong here and in Roe. 
  The easiest way to keep abortion legal is to keep electing pro choice people. Additionally, ballot initiatives show that when people directly vote on abortion restrictions, they vote for the pro choice position. Look at the referendums in Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana - 3 heavily Republican states. I'm very pro choice and oppose abortion restrictions, but we shouldn't pretend that the Constitution prohibits abortion restrictions >
  
  Anyone with a half-formed sense of fairness would agree. Problem is, the EC allows loser R candidates to win over and over again, so they all think it’s just hunky dory. >
  
  The EC, was established to prevent the tyrany of the majority. The big population centers from imposing thier will. So, it is working, just as intended! Forcing compromise was seen as the only way ti make a democratic republic work. The current complaining is just the reverse of the republiqans complaint of under representation based on property not having a vote. It is the same argument that divided the founders. Dems have to have policy that gets out the vote. That wins both arguments. Losing a republic because of apathy, a terrible waste. >
  
  
  The EC, was established to prevent the tyrany of the majority
  
  Direct elections of the president work fine in large democracies like France, Brazil, South Africa, and in diverse parliamentary democracies like India. This is a tired argument from the 18th century. >
  
  I've said this before, but, I think it bears repeating. This was in response in the same thread, and of course it got dropped when that guy deleted his post.  The system that we have is deadlocked, 51% - 49% in one election for one party, next election 51% -  49% for the other party. The reason I say this, is that amending the constitution requires super majorities. The reason that we have this deadlock is voter apathy and the GQP uses that to set election rules. Until we all vote, we're kind fucked. Gotta just keep trying. >
  
  How does any of mean the EC is useful or desirable? And plenty of democracies require supermajorities for changes to their constitution or other very critical choices; it's just that, say, in India's upper house, the Rajya Sabha, Sikkim, Goa, and a few other tiny states and territories have 1 seat while Utter Pradesh has 31. >
  
  Nothing, it is just what we have. It is a system, good or bad is up to the voters. >
  
  The EC gave us 2 of the dumbest presidents ever. It checks out. >
  
  
  The EC gave us 2 of the dumbest presidents ever.
  
  And Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. >
  
  At a bare minimum, if we can't get rid of the electoral college, we need to get rid of the "winner takes all" piece of it.  If a state has 20 electoral votes and Candidate A gets 55% of the vote and Candidate B gets 45% of the vote then it should be split 11 electoral votes to 9 instead of one person getting all 20.  We should be able to do at least that much without having to have 2/3rds of congress agreeing to change the constitution. >
  
  Is that really how it works? I'm not American, and I've always known your voting system is a bit too far from a real democracy, but... That seems blindingly stupid. I'd understand that republicans wouldn't make noise about it (it's the only way they get voted in), but I'd think the Dems would be shouting a bit more >
  
  Every state except Maine is all or nothing >
  
  And nebraska >
  
  But I believe their districts got redrawn after Obama managed to snag one of their EC points and it’s been straight red since. >
  
  Biden won 1 district, and its corresponding electoral vote, there in 2020. >
  
  For decades, the GOP defended the EC tooth and nail as being critical to protecting the voters in smaller states and preventing "tyranny of the majority".
  Then in 2016 they abandoned that in favor of the idea that state legislatures can ignore the voters in their state and simply appoint the electors directly instead.
  ​
  
  ​"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”   
  —David Frum >
  
  One person one vote. 
  Scariest phrase in American politics, just like it was in South Africa. >
  
  This tyranny of the minority sure is grating. >
  
  An ironic statement, considering their opposition to all other "minorities"
  But they don't get that. Republican voters think they are the majority, to the point they cry foul when they lose, and endorse a president who makes wild lies about his popularity. It's an education thing, or a lack thereof >
  
  "But, what about the tyranny!?"
  -Republicans, probably. >
  
  Good. People in rural America have way too much representation >
  
  and forcing the will of the inbred hick rural masses on those in urban areas is better how? >
  
  Their will isn't forced though. Biden is President right now and the Senate is Blue. >
  
  True for now, but rural hicks want an massive oversized amount of representation at the table. >
  
  I don’t understand the “lack of representation”. One vote is one vote to a grand total. If 150 million people vote it’s 150 million votes. Whoever has the majority is winner. This isn’t rocket science. >
  
  "Why should the people in the cities get to tell me how to live," said rural voters every where. (I don't agree with this statement, just that's where all my conversations with rural voters on this topic eventually go). >
  
  What they are saying is that they can’t deal with the fact that progressive and social ideas are actually quite popular and conservatives don’t want to lose power to the “others”. >
  
  They’re fine with lack of representation as long as it’s the city voters who aren’t represented.