He is currently at 72 million and in the last election got 74 million. This is the third comment in a row that I’ve had to say this. Where in the world are people getting these ridiculous numbers?

No it didn’t. 74 million votes in 2020, currently at 71 million for 2024. At best he matches previous numbers and that’s unlikely. Are people just making shit up?

No he isn’t. 71 million votes this year. 74 million in 2020. When the tally is done, at absolute best he matches his old performance within a percent or so, and that’s unlikely.

Granted I don’t understand those people, but this difference between now and 2020 is lack of support for Harris, not increased support for Trump. I’ll add people sitting at home to the list of people I don’t want to associate with.

Colle

The problem isn’t that states have disproportionate power, and moreover the NPVC is a poor solution. The problem is that all but two states allocate their delegates in a winner-take-all manner, so that a candidate with only 51% of the vote gets all of the delegates.

The NPVC requires huge buy in to work because in nearly half of cases it doesn’t result it a person’s voting power represening their actual vote. Thus, no individual citizen has incentive to support it. If it ever gets enough support to take effect, as soon as a state ends up with its delegates going to a candidate the citizens of that state didn’t vote for, they’ll repeal it and it will end nationally due to the wording of the law.

The solution is for states to allocate delegates proportionally to the votes of its citizens. That’s what voting is all about. If that system were in place, then there would have been no elections with a mismatch between the college and popular vote. Every citizen has individual incentive for that system, more so than the current system or NPVC, and therefore you don’t need the group buy-in wording that the NPVC has. It can be achieved on a state-by-state basis, and it would only need a few states to operate this way to have an impact.

Someone is going to point out that there are details and some states want to be fought over for their small percentage to swing the state, but the fact is that this solves the problem, and overwhelmingly this has fewer barriers and weakenesses than NPVC. If you care about this, contact your state government to change how delgates are allocated.

It also ignores that many of the the non-core policies of both major parties move toward the policies of the winning party. If Trump wins, support for Gaza in both parties will decrease. Not that there’s never a reason to vote third party, but nothing about third party voting is advantageous for this particular issue.

A black and white view of the world gets you nowhere. There is a huge difference in the way that this administration has handled this war and the way that Trump says he plans to handle it. To say that there is no difference in the degree of support these people would provide to Israel or Gazans is incredibly naive. Your choices are grass flavored ice cream, or shit flavored ice cream. Vanilla isn’t on the menu, and you have to pick one. “I don’t like either”, as if the two choices are the same, is living in a fantasy world.

People who deliberately misquote people are not worth talking with. There is a choice and if you think pretending like there isn’t one gets you somewhere, prepare for a very different approach to this war when Trump takes office.

I don’t at all understand what the point is here. Do you think that Trumo will support Gazans? Trump has said he would wholeheartedly take Israel’s side and provide more support than the current administration. There isn’t a choice between what you have and what you want. It’s between what you have and something worse than what you have.

Trump winning doesn’t force Democrats to support Gazans. It forces them to side with Israel in order to appeal to the electorate.

I can’t figure out what you mean. The subtitle in the lemmy post goes to the same place. Within the article I dont see a link elsewhere.

Humorous, but also stupid.

I don’t know what I’m missing here, but I don’t see numbers for the race at the link provided. I just see national polling numbers.

People know what it is. That’s why they’re down voting it. These don’t build communities.

We all have access to RSS and can create our own sets of feeds. Posts are for the things that are worth talking about. Spamming a community makes it harder to find the interesting things.

The fact that the number of delegates is not exactly proportional to the population of a state has never resulted in a popular vote mismatch eoth the college. It may happen, but it’s incredibly unlikely. Every time there’s been a mismatch has been because states allocate delegates in a winner take all manner. One of these this is a real problem amd one is a hypothetical problem. Solving the real problem is straightforward, and involes state level action of only a few states. The hypothetical problem is difficult to solve smd requires coordinated effort of many states at ones. You can spend your time solving a hypothetical problem and maybe achieve success in 70 years. Or you you address the real problem and succeed in 20 years.

What you’re describing has never resulted in the popular vote winner losing the electoral college. The popular vote winner has always lost because states allocate delegates as a winner-take-all system.

The real solution is to allocate delegates proportionally to how citizens vote, as is done in Nebraska and a couple other states. This achieves exactly the same purpose as the NPVC but is actually politically tractable.

No state has any incentive to assign its delgates to a person the citizens of the state didn’t vote for. You can do what the NPVC does and make it contingent upon everyone playing along, but that requires everyone to play along and is incredibly tenuous. Even if it ever goes into effect, as soon as states allocate delegates to someone who wasn’t the most popular candidate in their state they’ll pull it, and the whole thing will fall apart.

Every state has incentive to allocate its delegates proportionally. That’s exactly what people want. They want that more than winner takes all. It doesn’t require a huge chuck of states to buy into it amd it isn’t tenuous. But it accomplishes the same goal; if states allocate delegates proportionally to how they vote, then the most popular candidate gets the most delegates. If you’re in one of the many states that has winner takes all, advocate to do what the few more democratic states have already adopted and are happy with.

Every state should allocate its delegates proportionally to how its citizens voted. It’s the most democratic approach. If just a few (5 to 8 key states) states did this, it would be very unlikely for mismatches between the electoral college and popular vote.

I think voters should petition their local officials to change their local election systems to use some sort of proportional voting. Then we’ll get better local officials and we can keep pushing this system to higher levels.

I don’t like NPV. I wrote about that in response to someone else, but in short, it’s the same mentality as allocating all electors to someone who wins only a portion of the vote, which is inherently flawed. It’s better than what we have now, but it’s a hard sell because people never want their vote to go to a candidate they didn’t support, so there will always be states that rightly don’t support it.

I don’t think there’s ever a case where the electoral college itself has ever been the problem. The problem is the same one that plagues local elections but in a different form: there isn’t proportional voting.

At the national level, states allocate all of their electors to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state. If a candidate wins 51% of the state’s votes they get 100% of the electors. That has historically been the reason presidents win despite losing the popular vote, not because of the college itself. Even without the college, if states allocated their voting power that way, you’d have the exact same problem.

At the local level the problem is more confined in that an individual can only put all of their influence behind a single candidate. This forces one to choose the least bad option.

The solution at all levels is proportional voting. States should allocate their electors according to the proportion of votes candidate receive. This needs some thought to do because it’s impossible to allocate exactly proportionally, but it’s a simple problem to address. At least two states do this. For every election I’m aware of where the president won despite losing the popular vote, this would have prevented that.

At all levels, something like ranked choice voting (there are other possibilities) allows voters to support multiple candidates, letting them give the most support for the candidate they genuinely prefer, but giving a hedge to support a candidate they do t love but that’s better than their worst candidate. This could be applied on top of a state’s system for allocating electors.

This is probably a top 3 priority for creating a workable government instead of this shit show we have now. It’s gaining significant reactions with several states using some sort of proportional system, but there’s heavy opposition from the current policitians. They know if it gets through, they’ll lose their elections, and won’t be able to jerk around their constituents. If you’re sick of one shit party vs another shit party, do everything you can to support proportional voting at all levels, and to get your state to allocate electors proportionally (not like the NPV pact does).