• orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

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

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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!

          • orcrist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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.

      • Crikeste@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

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