• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The way the multi-state pact works is that member states agree to give all their electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote, regardless of who the state actually voted for.

    It doesn’t actually get rid of the Electoral College, that would take a constitutional amendment, it just re-apportions the Electoral College votes based on the outcome of the popular vote.

    So in 2000 and 2016, the Democratic candidate won Oregon, and won the popular vote, they would get all the electoral college votes, not a problem, even though they lost the election overall.

    Where it WILL be a problem is if the Democratic candidate wins the state, but the Republican candidate wins the national popular vote.

    State voters will be told “Yeah, we don’t care who you actually voted for, the Republican gets the votes from your state.” OMG there will be riots.

    Think of it like this… Your vote in your state gets inverted because of voters in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc. etc.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Your state EC vote for a losing candidate is a purely symbolic exercise with zero effect whatsoever on the result. And once the NPVC is in effect even the symbolism will be effectively nil as people no longer care or count electoral votes.

      If the Republicans win the popular vote, they’ve also won the electoral college, but even if they didn’t, that’s democracy. Trying to overturn the will of the people by reverting to an archaic and undemocratic system is anti-democracy. You have to actually believe the EC has some value to try go to the streets to try to restore it, but it’s a bad system that invalidates people’s votes, whether or not Democrats are winning.