The Sneaky Plan to Subvert the Electoral College for the Next Election

コメント数

  1. CGP Grey

    CGP Grey19 時間 前

    An update, sort of: jpreporter.net/v/%E3%83%93%E3%83%87%E3%82%AA-COmW6r23zas.html

  2. Soulwrite7

    Soulwrite79 時間 前

    @TROPtastic I am using riots to describe riots, and would have specified peaceful protests as well if I had any opposition to them, which I do not. There are certainly other examples which could be used, though your thoughts given the example certainly telegraph your own political standing? The current president does seem to speak first, providing ammunition to the media, only then to get outraged when the ammunition is used.

  3. TROPtastic

    TROPtastic9 時間 前

    @Soulwrite7 It's interesting how using the word "riots" to encompass the mix of riots and peaceful protests identifies you as being of a certain political persuasion. Leaving that aside though, it's absurd to talk about the *left* trying to violently take over states when the *right* in America has been much more willing to strut around brandishing weapons and to murder their political opponents. Also, if you're concerned about a weak candidate getting elected based on meaningless words and a lack of sound policies and ability to govern, you should be outraged about the current POTUS.

  4. Soulwrite7

    Soulwrite710 時間 前

    The more I think about this, the more terrifying it is. Look at the chaos of the 2020 riots. Everything going before the Supreme Court is the best case scenario. The other option will be for example if the primarily left voters have all the votes go to the right, they violently try and take over their state and succeed, or recast. Or if you have an already establish incumbent president who lost they may refuse to give up their power, because there are many people in these states who had their vote subverted which could lead to a divide in government and a civil war. Finally if you end up with this all passing, and have a direct democracy ( mob rule ) you would be more likely to end up with some charismatic candidate promising homogeneity and doing a knock-off Charlie Chaplin impersonation.

  5. christopher thompson

    christopher thompson12 時間 前

    Seems to me like that would solve the whole electoral college minority vote problem. Am I missing something? Surely you would be very pro this judging by your other videos.

  6. Jack NotTellingGoogle

    Jack NotTellingGoogle13 時間 前

    New vid pog

  7. FragmentalStew

    FragmentalStew時間 前

    I think, if enacted, this would significantly increase the number of people who vote because people would know that their vote actually contributes to who wins.

  8. Dj Clabe

    Dj Clabe時間 前

    "The states less populous produce preponderate presidential picking power per person" I see what you did there 👀

  9. Matt T

    Matt T時間 前

    For the states outside of this agreement, this will be seen as a coup d'état. I can very much imagine widespread violence and fighting in the aftermath.

  10. Cody Christie

    Cody Christie2 時間 前

    Travel back in time to the writing of the Constitution, & all the folks have ribbons & pig tails? Maybe wrong dimension.

  11. Michael Timpson

    Michael Timpson2 時間 前

    Actually if they did this so that they counted ALL the popular vote, meaning ALL American citizens, regardless if they lived in a territory, overseas, etc. then it would be perfect. But you would definitely need laws preventing faithless electors. Also, you can't have some state dropping out of the agreement right after the election, but before the electoral college meets either....

  12. Michael Timpson

    Michael Timpson37 分 前

    Also, many inputs were designed to take ADAT 8 tracks...including regular common digital inputs. In fact, the machines were easily syncable so that you could modularly build up to as many tracks as you need.

  13. Cara Barnes

    Cara Barnes3 時間 前

    I mean it's 2020 so anything can happen this year

  14. SammyJammyBammy

    SammyJammyBammy5 時間 前

    Hey! that's Doune castle @2:20 - the castle used in Monty Python: The Holy Grail - this has got to be one of grey's Easter eggs!

  15. john jones

    john jones5 時間 前

    Well, I mean sure, there have been plenty of times when the president is not the person who got the most votes, but the thing is, it is so the states are equal and not ignored, if it was not like this you would only need to focus on the states with more people, meaning the president does not need to represent the most states, just the most people. So those states that have less population would most likely feel like the government does not care about them.

  16. Zolfried

    Zolfried7 時間 前

    it happended once, it can happen again.. lets do brexit the american version..

  17. irmuu sanaa

    irmuu sanaa7 時間 前

    Yeaaaa... there are exactly ten 10 states who have joined this mess.

  18. irmuu sanaa

    irmuu sanaa時間 前

    Arnout H it’s still a horrible idea since it will just replace swing states with population centers and based on current political mind sent could theoretically create a one party system with out knowing it.

  19. irmuu sanaa

    irmuu sanaa時間 前

    Arnout H oh yea I was looking at a map from 2019

  20. Arnout H

    Arnout H時間 前

    You mean 16, right?

  21. TheHobgoblyn

    TheHobgoblyn8 時間 前

    "a thousand generations of this Republic".... uhh... how long do you think the U.S.A. has been around? That's got to be one of the dumbest lines I have ever heard uttered on a history channel. The U.S.A. hasn't been around for even 10 human generations and, even if you mean 4 year cycles, that would be 4,000 years. Even if you could possibly mean 1-year cycles? Dude-- the U.S. hasn't been around for even 250 years (though it is coming up on that.)

  22. Arnout H

    Arnout H時間 前

    Since when is this a history channel? Also, ever heard of hyperbole?

  23. AestheticSloth

    AestheticSloth8 時間 前

    And now the electoral votes have to go to the popular vote thanks to lobbyists in the supreme court. Big RIP

  24. liam gil

    liam gil8 時間 前

    This seems silly. Why would a state give up its political power to citizens who it doesnt represent? There is no benefit.

  25. Vince Marenger

    Vince Marenger9 時間 前

    How is America even a real country? Even the electoral system is incredibly messed up!

  26. Alexander Eick

    Alexander Eick10 時間 前

    I like the consequences but not the means

  27. Mark Ingoldsby

    Mark Ingoldsby11 時間 前

    What the heck does "gromulent" mean? TIA

  28. Some Guy

    Some Guy11 時間 前

    If this wins, states with small populations won’t see a lot of campaigning. Like, at all. In fact, wasn’t the whole point to begin with to prevent people from nabbing the election by focusing only on big cities? This seems like it would kind of make the system wors-

  29. KAY DE

    KAY DE11 時間 前

    I’m basically that stick figure that just said wait what? o.O

  30. David Kirkland

    David Kirkland13 時間 前

    Eventually states will ignore the national majority and just agree to vote for who the elites want. We will have reached full-blown banana republic. Soon because the "silent majority" stays silent (denial).

  31. William Dunhan

    William Dunhan13 時間 前

    It's treasonous. No sugar-coating it. No Technicality. No greater good. It's treasonous & it's evil.

  32. Arnout H

    Arnout H時間 前

    How exactly is it traitorous, let alone evil?

  33. AestheticSloth

    AestheticSloth8 時間 前

    @William Dunhan its not betrayal if that's part of the law silly bugger

  34. William Dunhan

    William Dunhan11 時間 前

    @Some Guy treason, by definition, is illegal. Stop it. Get some help.

  35. Some Guy

    Some Guy11 時間 前

    Treasonous and evil, but completely legal.

  36. stawksop

    stawksop13 時間 前

    Wait; if we go based off of popular vote; how will rural areas truly have representation. For instances; farmers in California having their water rerouted to the cities. :\

  37. Arnout H

    Arnout H時間 前

    The EC already doesn’t represent them at all.

  38. Some Guy

    Some Guy11 時間 前

    That’s why the EC exists to begin with. Grey kinda tries to sidestep that whole issue though and make the guys who wrote the constitution look like they didn’t care at all about the people.

  39. Ricky N

    Ricky N13 時間 前

    2:56 America’s Vegetable Taxes 🍆

  40. ZoddtheGod

    ZoddtheGod13 時間 前

    GROND!

  41. Shaddykack

    Shaddykack14 時間 前

    Constitutional subversion has never backfired on anyone ever. Yup. Not even once.

  42. Cole Scheer

    Cole Scheer14 時間 前

    This is all great and all, except for: Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress... Enter into any Agreement or Compact with another state, or with a foreign power.”

  43. Thehaiku Samurai

    Thehaiku Samurai8 時間 前

    you're an absolute genius, somebody right that down!

  44. Jordan Kalmov

    Jordan Kalmov15 時間 前

    Welcome to the oligarchy

  45. benzbubblecat

    benzbubblecat15 時間 前

    the best thing about this video that I never noticed before is that Alaska wears a scarf

  46. Ethan Stoehr

    Ethan Stoehr16 時間 前

    this plan didn't age well

  47. Yesid Antonio

    Yesid Antonio16 時間 前

    1000 generations???? lmfao settlers are so much this country was founded in the late 1700s that was at most a couple dozen generations ago

  48. silveredgeshaid

    silveredgeshaid17 時間 前

    "Do you even own land?" "No" "Than why would we listen to you?"

  49. RealmRabbit

    RealmRabbit18 時間 前

    Is there anything that locks a state into the plan? Because if states don't get locked into the plan then perhaps they could pull some game theory with a few other states to use the plan for their own other plan by making those states think that they'll vote for the popular candidate when really they'll instead vote for the unpopular candidate their states want... When you're trying to get people who've been competing for so long to suddenly instead cooperate, kinda natural to expect betrayal if they think it'll be to their gain without any consequences that outweigh the benefits...

  50. viktor1496

    viktor149614 時間 前

    Yes, states that have signed it are legally obligated to enact it as soon as the compact would go into effect.

  51. Adam Pickard

    Adam Pickard18 時間 前

    So theres this stupid partisan idea (I'm british so I'm chill pointing this out) in which republicans are/ have become absolutely uncomfortable calling their country a democracy, and instead insist it is a constitutional republic (perhaps citing the electoral college) and that the two things do not mix like oil and water. But the idea of democracy is rule by the people (kinda like the preamble of the consititution begins we the people), the notion of an electoral component isn't the defining factor, though commonly a chosen citizen leader or body of representatives (or both) wield the power of the people and are susceptible to removal at the pleasure of the people (unlike elected monarchs which go way further back and do not stem their power from the people). Moreover republic really doesnt mean what people think. A republic isnt a post-monarchy or post-colony. Republic comes from res publica or public thing. Thing in this context may be an assembly body or common good (its very ambiguous). A public assembly ruled by an elected citizen isnt a contradiction. The term republic comes from the period of roman history defined by its complicated patrician democracy

  52. AestheticSloth

    AestheticSloth8 時間 前

    Almost like the Republic need democracy to survive but too much is deadly

  53. Gage Barbour

    Gage Barbour18 時間 前

    It's bizarre that it's framed as an EC issue when the Census determines the amount of EVs each state gets. The real issue is that the congressional districting is based off of an inconsistent number. Meaning that California doesn't have over 1,000 EVs, though it should. Framing that Wyoming has 1 vote per 192,000 is disingenuous becuase it includes two senators, which is proportionally higher in Wyoming than California even if the standard was balanced.

  54. Nata1014

    Nata101418 時間 前

    I don’t want to be in the U.S when this shit happens.

  55. David

    David19 時間 前

    That enters terrain of the Federal level, and can be taken to SCOTUS.

  56. seigeengine

    seigeengine19 時間 前

    To be clear, a direct democracy IS a republic.

  57. Dan H

    Dan H19 時間 前

    I would prefer a solution that involved the alternative vote system. I like the idea of people voting for who they actually want instead of voting against the guy they don’t want.

  58. Dan H

    Dan H9 時間 前

    M McCoy I was referring to one of his other videos from a couple years ago. He goes over a series of voting systems other than popular vote

  59. M McCoy

    M McCoy9 時間 前

    That would be rank choice voting.

  60. Gokibro S

    Gokibro S19 時間 前

    fuck this gay earth oL_o

  61. Stephen Gallagher

    Stephen Gallagher日 前

    So, I was wondering if the 2020 Supreme Court ruling about electoral votes having to be cast for the same candidate that the majority voted for in that state, did it mean the end of NaPoVoInterCo. But, I’m guessing not. The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t require that every state’s electoral votes be cast for the candidate who won the majority in that state. The ruling simply means that an individual state can require that the electoral votes in their state must be cast for whomever won the majority in that state - but it doesn’t have to require it. Obviously NaPoVoInterCo states wouldn’t have such a requirement. But, using Grey’s words, this Supreme Court ruling will make for an even more “amazing” conflict to watch should NaPoVoInterCo ever succeed in doing what it was intended to do.

  62. 1jtwister

    1jtwister日 前

    also... the "compact" you refer to doesn't expire for any state ever... this means , they can wait years and years and years until that final state says yes and the whole thing kicks in... NOTY on coastal 'elite' crybullies handpicking our president

  63. viktor1496

    viktor14965 時間 前

    @Some Guy And if enough states agree on it, those rules can be changed. And oh come on, like presidents during an election give a flying shit about New Hamsphire, Alabama or Washington state. All they care about is swing states and keeping them happy, the whole system ensures the states who consistently vote one way don't have a voice at all to begin with. The whole "low population area" argument is one big strawman.

  64. Some Guy

    Some Guy11 時間 前

    viktor1496 “Rightful president”. The rightful president is the president who won according to the rules of America’s system, not the system you THINK should be in place. What’s really partisan is trying to create a system where the opinions of areas with low population density become completely irrelevant to who rules them, and where candidates can win by focusing exclusively on the big city areas. Honestly I’m not even American and I can see the purpose of this system.

  65. viktor1496

    viktor149614 時間 前

    I could also say "NOTY on midwest uneducated hillbillies preventing the rightful president of being chosen." But you'd know that is bullshit as well Stop being a partisan ass. We don't live in the 18th century anymore, let what the majority of Americans want dictate the future of our country.

  66. Andre Van Slyke

    Andre Van Slyke日 前

    For those commenting recently - the Supreme Court ruling doesn't prevent this from taking place. It actually ALLOWS a State to enforce this method at a judicial level once it goes into effect. Basically, the ruling from the Supreme Court states that the Electors need to Vote based on how their State Law says they need to vote. So if State Law says "An Elector must vote for the candidate who won the State" then the electors have to follow regardless of how they want to personally vote (aka faithless electors). If, HOWEVER, the State Law says "An Elector need to vote for the candidate who won the National Popular Vote" then regardless of how the voting in that State turned out, the electors would be required to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote.

  67. The Steel Curtain

    The Steel Curtain日 前

    Not anymore

  68. Darth Nerd

    Darth Nerd日 前

    Napovo sounds like COMMUNISM

  69. raffle baffle

    raffle baffle18 時間 前

    @Darth Nerd no i thought you were being serious with the context of the rest of the comment section

  70. Darth Nerd

    Darth Nerd18 時間 前

    @raffle baffle Yes, its a joke. You dont get it?

  71. raffle baffle

    raffle baffle19 時間 前

    do you know what communisim is....

  72. Robert Riggs

    Robert Riggs日 前

    I wonder how this will play out since the supreme court ruling.

  73. zurdo z

    zurdo z2 日 前

    not anymore. Supreme Court ruled.

  74. viktor1496

    viktor149614 時間 前

    All the supreme court ruled is that states have the right to enforce voting according to the way they want. Not that they are required to, every state can still do whatever it wants In fact It helps the compact.

  75. Charley Wymore

    Charley Wymore2 日 前

    I love how the Supreme Court basically made this video irrelevant recently.

  76. Charley Wymore

    Charley Wymore14 時間 前

    @viktor1496 Hey I just watched Grey's recent video so....

  77. viktor1496

    viktor149614 時間 前

    All the supreme court ruled is that states have the right to enforce voting according to the way they want. Not that they are required to, every state can still do whatever it wants In fact It helps the compact.

  78. John Waters

    John Waters2 日 前

    When even Ruth Bater Ginsberg strikes this down, you know you’re on the wrong side of history.

  79. J-Dog776

    J-Dog7762 日 前

    Who’s here after the SCOTUS outlawed faithless electors.

  80. MrEppart

    MrEppart19 時間 前

    SCOTUS permitted state laws to outlaw faithless electors, big difference.

  81. Jessica Lee

    Jessica Lee2 日 前

    I don't like this new idea

  82. John Waters

    John Waters19 時間 前

    MrEppart Ok? Yeah I saw it. I don’t really care.

  83. MrEppart

    MrEppart19 時間 前

    @John Waters lol no they didn't, SCOTUS decided that states may pass laws which outlaw faithless electors. Grey actually made a video on it.

  84. John Waters

    John Waters2 日 前

    Supreme Court struck this down 9-0

  85. jadc08

    jadc083 日 前

    Why do I imagine New York girl as Hamilton. Guy was undemocratic af.

  86. eery

    eery3 日 前

    6:33 "The electoral college, in a fortress of axiomatic constitutionality has survived for a thousand generations of this republic" Just what does this mean? The republic in question hasn't even existed for 1000 years, making whatever generation (People? Elections? President-terms?) less than a year, to make this work out. I'm very much aware Im being pedantic, I'm just curious if maybe I'm misunderstanding what he means here.

  87. PJ VC

    PJ VC6 分 前

    I think cp grey did a X instead of a / because the US exits about 250 years now and 250x4 is 1000 but there's been an election every 4 years

  88. Some Guy

    Some Guy11 時間 前

    FCA Alamo There’s no way to tell other than the fact that the statement is wrong. :/

  89. FCA Alamo

    FCA Alamo2 日 前

    It's just a hyperbole figure of speech describing how long the electoral college has lasted. Of course it hasn't lasted that long.

  90. Matthew Jones

    Matthew Jones3 日 前

    Sounds sneaky but not nefarious. Hypothetically, these States could just pick the presidency whether or not the electoral vote or the popular vote is with them, right. Imagine if this interstate compact not only decided to circumvent the electoral college, but also the popular vote by binding their electors to their preferred candidate.

  91. Walter de Vries

    Walter de Vries6 時間 前

    If I understand Grey correctly, that is not allowed by the law

  92. CollectvlyUnconsious

    CollectvlyUnconsious3 日 前

    Yay pro-colonialism! No more will those uncivilized, under populated coloni... i mean states have a voice in the laws they live under passed by someone they can't vote against. Yay, Kings and Dictators

  93. Some Guy

    Some Guy11 時間 前

    MrEppart But conveniently states with low population density will lose every time if they go against those of high population density.

  94. MrEppart

    MrEppart19 時間 前

    you did vote, and you came out to have lost. that's literally how democracy works.

  95. TheDemon

    TheDemon3 日 前

    Here from the future, the Supreme Court just backed up the legality of the compact

  96. Captain Rev

    Captain Rev12 時間 前

    Not even close.

  97. Captain Rev

    Captain Rev12 時間 前

    No it didn't.

  98. Ben Roley

    Ben Roley3 日 前

    The supreme court just ruled that states have the right to bar electors for not voting with the people... not looking good for this plan

  99. Christopher LaBiche

    Christopher LaBiche3 日 前

    Did you forget that each candidate chooses who will represent them from each state? The states themselves don’t actually cast the electoral college votes, it’s people hand-selected by each candidate. In other words, this is a pipe dream. And worse than that, it’s misleading.

  100. Christopher LaBiche

    Christopher LaBiche16 時間 前

    something like that if you look at the ballot when you vote, you are actually voting for a slate of electors that have been chosen by the candidate.

  101. something like that

    something like that16 時間 前

    I thought states could send whoever they want and just allow the parties to pick them at the moment.

  102. Jeff J

    Jeff J3 日 前

    Earlier today (July 7th, 2020) the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous ruling making these types of schemes a non-starter.

  103. viktor1496

    viktor149614 時間 前

    All the supreme court ruled is that states have the right to enforce voting according to the way they want. Not that they are required to, every state can still do whatever it wants In fact It helps the compact.

  104. osunightfall

    osunightfall2 日 前

    Again no, do you even know what the ruling says?

  105. Tyler Frederick

    Tyler Frederick3 日 前

    Well, this wont happen anymore with scotus new ruling. But interesting none the less

  106. osunightfall

    osunightfall2 日 前

    The new scotus ruling does not seem to affect this in any way. It merely allows that states may legally draft and enforce laws, if they so choose, to punish faithless electors. It doesn't say they have to, it doesn't say the electors have to vote in any particular way, it only says they may be punished or removed if they don't, assuming there is a law that addresses that circumstance.

  107. RationallySkeptical

    RationallySkeptical3 日 前

    0:42 Might want to overlay a text amendment here since the Supreme Court just passed laws giving states the ability to punish the electorate if they dont vote as the state wants. Doesn't mean it cant happen anymore, but there can be heavy penalties now.

  108. Cody Leonard

    Cody Leonard3 日 前

    So did this plan just die? The Supreme Court just ruled that States can punish faithless electors, which kind of what this plan hinges on, that being that electors can vote for whoever they want without punishment.

  109. Andre Van Slyke

    Andre Van Slyke日 前

    No, all the negative commentors assume faithless electors. This plan assumes the State passes laws requiring electors to vote based on National Popular Vote, which should be supported by the ruling.

  110. tocov

    tocov3 日 前

    Well, RBG torpedoed this entire idea lol It was obviously unconstitutional, I can't believe CGP Grey even discussed this BS.

  111. Isaiah Wilson

    Isaiah Wilson4 日 前

    Update! the supreme court just ruled that Electoral college HAS to vote the way its states citizens voted. so the plan is foiled, because point 2 has been deemed unconstitutional.

  112. Andre Van Slyke

    Andre Van Slyke日 前

    @osunightfall The ruling contains multiple relevant wording. First it upholds this ruling: "A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nom-inee-and the state voters’ choice-for President." But it also contains this explanation: "And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment, absent some other constitutional constraint. A State can require, for example, [...] the elector pledge to cast his Electoral College ballot for his party’s presidential nominee, thus tracking the State’s popular vote. " {Additional examples are given during the [..]} Since the elaboration include the explanation that the "power to condition his appointment" the State could theoretically enact law requiring their electors to vote based on National Majority instead of directly reflecting state vote. Would it still be challenged? Probably - but this ruling should give precedent. Now, I'm no lawyer, but this matches up with multiple think pieces I've read recently, so I think the base logic for idea by Grey is still sound.

  113. osunightfall

    osunightfall日 前

    Andre Van Slyke As much as I wish that were true, it's not. Saying they can be forced to vote for their pledges does not necessarily mean they can be made to vote according to other criteria. The court didn't reach that question. It will likely take a future case to answer that question.

  114. Andre Van Slyke

    Andre Van Slyke日 前

    @osunightfall It clarifies that the electors have to vote based on State Law. So State Law can be ratified to force Electors to vote based on National Popular Vote - which everyone seems to be missing with these negative comments. I'm not sure its worth the time trying to convince all the commentors though.

  115. osunightfall

    osunightfall2 日 前

    That's not what the ruling says at all, and isn't even what the case was about. It merely says that states may constitutionally punish unfaithful electors if they put laws into effect that would do so. Nothing more.

  116. Tawny Prince

    Tawny Prince4 日 前

    Anyone else come back now that the most recent Supreme Court ruling about faithless electors has killed any chance for something like this to work?

  117. osunightfall

    osunightfall2 日 前

    That's not what the ruling says at all, and isn't even what the case was about. It merely says that states may constitutionally punish unfaithful electors if they put laws into effect that would do so. Nothing more.

  118. Carlos Marcus

    Carlos Marcus4 日 前

    I think the Supreme Court decision just allows states to make their electors follow the states' rules- whatever those rules are. So I think they could require their electors to vote for the national popular vote winner instead of the state-level winner, in which case the Supreme Court decision is actually a win for NaPoVoInterCo. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  119. Patrick Taw

    Patrick Taw7 時間 前

    cmdrfunk you got it perfectly. Electors are bound to the consequences of their contract/state law but their voting ability is not hindered. If the fine is $500k, then that’s a hefty price to pay but if you are willing go for it.

  120. cmdrfunk

    cmdrfunk18 時間 前

    They can still vote however they want. The ruling was that they can be punished for not voting as directed. Most states ONLY issue a fine.

  121. PotatoTornado

    PotatoTornado19 時間 前

    1jtwister You're wrong. It only means that states can make faithless voters banned. It did not make them banned. That is a huge difference.

  122. 1jtwister

    1jtwister日 前

    you're wrong... they locked electors in to what the state general vote decided... CNN probably didn't understand it either wen they 'reported' it

  123. osunightfall

    osunightfall2 日 前

    Holy shit the one person who actually seems to understand what the case was about. However I think it's a step too far to say that the door can swing the other way. I'm not certain this ruling could be used to enforce legislation requiring electors to vote for the popular vote winner. I think that legal question is still undecided.

  124. Dawson Mulkey

    Dawson Mulkey4 日 前

    THE SUPREME COURT JUST BLOCKED THIS!!!!!!

  125. Nigo Maramag

    Nigo Maramag日 前

    Did they? I thought it was about banning faithless electors.

  126. J-Dog776

    J-Dog7762 日 前

    Not exactly but sorta

  127. Aethel Yfel

    Aethel Yfel4 日 前

    This will never cause a problem for the republic, ever. What if they sign the compact and break the compact? There is no way to enforce the interstate compact. It’s like a modern attempt of the Marian reforms.

  128. CRasch Net

    CRasch Net4 日 前

    One clause, interstate compact clause.

  129. AJ Mythos

    AJ Mythos4 日 前

    Looks like the Supreme Court just killed this plan.

  130. Preston Hall

    Preston Hall2 日 前

    Are you kidding? The SCOTUS all but enforced this plan, just indirectly. It's ruling follows straight from the clause in the constitution that says the states get full authority in how they choose their electors. That's the same quirk with the electoral college that the pact aims to exploit.

  131. J-Dog776

    J-Dog7762 日 前

    No, states can now choose to not allow faithless electors. It’s not required.

  132. Ridge Alden

    Ridge Alden4 日 前

    In case anyone watching doesn't know, the sneaky states are liberally lead. The democrats want a 'true democracy" so that the president could be decided my a few democrat run cities every election. This is why America is a republic, so that the entirety of the nation is heard not just a few thought bubbled cities.

  133. Doctor Smaug

    Doctor Smaug4 日 前

    The top 300 most populated cities make up about 30% of the population. The vast majority of the population is not in the biggest cities. Not all of those cities are democrat. They can't control the popular vote. Even if they did, for what good reason should the president be chosen by the minority of the citizens?

  134. Keoki Higa

    Keoki Higa4 日 前

    It baffles me that we still use the electoral college. I mean people use all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify it, but it runs against the idea of democracy. That is how it was designed by the founding fathers, but they also wanted only people like them to vote and thought chattel slavery was fine. The original idea of the electoral college is that some elites know who to pick as president, and if that goes against the will of the people then so be it. I know someone is going to point out "tHaT's BeCaUsE wE'rE a RePuBlIc." The whole point of a Republic is to protect the rights of a minority, but not to subvert the will of the majority. The way the government was supposed to work was Congress draws the lines, the Supreme Court determines if the lines are just, and the president fills in between the lines as he see fit. Using indirect democracy doesn't save us from trampling on a group's rights. Just ask Native Americans about Andrew Jackson or the Japanese about FDR.

  135. Aykan Yavas

    Aykan Yavas4 日 前

    And just like that, my hopes of watching the states storm the fortress and trap the electoral college in this year’s election are gone.

  136. Nigo Maramag

    Nigo Maramag日 前

    @1jtwister Did you mean: DJT would look after your stocks nonetheless... if you don't have any too bad?

  137. Aykan Yavas

    Aykan Yavas日 前

    1jtwister I don’t want him to look after me.

  138. 1jtwister

    1jtwister日 前

    DJT will look after you nonetheless... more than any president you have ever had or will ever have

  139. joplimat

    joplimat4 日 前

    Well this plan is ruined now thanks to SCOTUS

  140. deltaangelfire

    deltaangelfire4 日 前

    Did not get enough yelling to watch with popcorn for the SCOTUS ruling. I am very disappointed in you, Grey

  141. joshua saidian

    joshua saidian4 日 前

    they patched it :(

  142. Freed4

    Freed43 日 前

    Yeah recent update fixed this exploit.

  143. Superhrnet

    Superhrnet4 日 前

    With the SCOTUS decision today, I wonder if states will be more willing to push for this, considering state electoral commissions were given the unanimous OK to ignore dissenting electors and pledge votes according to the state rules

  144. Alex Koscielski

    Alex Koscielski4 日 前

    Does this plan still work now with the new Supreme Court ruling?

  145. Freed4

    Freed43 日 前

    Ok so no. The legislative work required to have this happen is astronomical. Saying that having state legislation to vote for the national popular vote is the same as an amendment; not theoretically impossible but legislatively improbable.

  146. Alex Koscielski

    Alex Koscielski4 日 前

    @Silver Lining Thank you!!

  147. Silver Lining

    Silver Lining4 日 前

    Pretty much since the SC said states CAN enforce it, not must

  148. Thrust n Howl

    Thrust n Howl4 日 前

    Lol, i just realized that the US and the Texas girls are the only ones with guns, very apropo.

  149. TheHarlequinHatter

    TheHarlequinHatter4 日 前

    Rip NaPoVoInterCo. It was a good try.

  150. PotatoTornado

    PotatoTornado18 時間 前

    TheHarlequinHatter It isn't dead. The SCOTUS decision lets states punish people who vote differently, but it didn't make them have to. It is only illegal if the state decides it is.

  151. CorrinKing

    CorrinKing4 日 前

    Today's date is Monday July 6th 2020, and the Supreme Court has just ruled unanimously that states can now enforce their electoral candidates to vote on behalf of the popular vote of the state, rending this plan no longer viable.