Nate said today that a coin actually has a 50.5% chance of heads, so this is technically closer than a coin flip!

I can’t really see how this is different from anything except that it is an online movement. There have always been slogans, campaigns, and movements to get people motivated to vote. This particular movement is helpful to motivate people who might feel that their vote isn’t significant, as it helps them to think of it in concrete terms as a chess move against their MAGA loved one. I don’t see why that is so stupid. It seems like hating it is more of a knee-jerk reaction against people who use TikTok. While I dislike TikTok myself, this seems like one of the weakest examples of why it’s bad.

Yes, they want weeks of no official result being declared, during which they say Trump definitely won, so that when the final result comes in, if it’s Harris, they can say Democrats are trying to overturn the election

How long was Prince “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince”?

For about seven years, and then he went back to calling himself Prince again.

Yeah, I’m not as addicted to Lemmy as I was with Reddit, because there aren’t as many comments and niche communities and an algorithm messing with me, but like I check Lemmy throughout each day and if I’m honest there’s not much purpose aside from getting that hit.

https://youtu.be/-wCR65V6wxE?si=rRTJvER1ENQqoC83

Not voting in enough Democrats into Congress to do anything and saying the Democrats didn’t actually want to do anything

You just fundamentally do not understand statistics and it’s tiresome

And here I thought it was not having the needed amount of votes that caused her to lose.

I’m sick of people blaming Hillary‘s campaign for all the horrible shit that ensued afterwards. Candidates campaign because it is in their best interest to do so, but at the end of the day, this is our government. It’s our job as citizens to educate ourselves on the candidates, the voting system, and the stakes of the election. We should be figuring out who best to vote for, whether they are good at campaigning or not.

So, while Hillary might have won with a better campaign, the blame for Trump getting into power firmly rests with the voting public. We knew what kind of person Trump was before he was elected, and we knew there was a vacant Supreme Court seat.

Don’t blame it on the fact that people weren’t manipulated well enough by a giant ad campaign.

It would also probably be a constant battle to keep it in effect anyway, because every state that has entered the compact can always leave. As long as you can shut off the compact by removing one or two states from it, it will be an unstable mess.

This is probably a fool’s errand, because it’s all or nothing, making it inherently unstable. If we ever get within striking distance of having enough states to cross the threshold, the law will be fought tooth and nail to prevent passage, and this battle would continue in perpetuity in every remotely purple state that has the NPVIC law in place, trying to get enough overturned to stop it.

Maybe it accomplishes something useful simply by bringing the conversation about reform to the forefront? But as an actual solution I’m completely skeptical, as much as I like the idea.

“How do I help my uncle Jack off a horse?”

Yikes!

A problem with this question is that the US is such a big and diverse place, that you could have this same question posed to Americans only, asking about their experience visiting other parts of the US.

You think an American wouldn’t also regard that interaction as weird?

Do I just live in a weird bubble? I live in the US and I am rarely at someone’s house who doesn’t remove their shoes nowadays. I certainly grew up wearing shoes at home, but that’s changed significantly over the past 20 years or so.

Yeah, I always wonder how often there’s a need to refer to inhabitants of two continents together as a single entity. Like, if you say someone is South American or North American, that is never confused with being someone specifically from the US. When would those terms be insufficient?

Don’t you mean “from AND into”?

I’m not sure what you mean. Of course it’s never happened because we’ve never done it that way.

If you’re saying that if you go back and calculate previous elections, then it never would have made a difference, that doesn’t mean it could not happen. Growing up I learned that there was only one time in history that the popular vote didn’t match the EC, but now it’s become a constant threat. If it becomes a viable path then eventually it is bound to be exploited.

What you are talking about simply isn’t functionally equivalent to just straight up popular vote, for the reason I described. Votes are not worth the same amount in different places.

This only solves it if you also make the number of delegates for each state be proportional to its population size. California has 68 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times the number of electoral votes.