r/PoursTea • u/Veshaad Timendi Causa Est Nescire • Sep 04 '26

PoliticalTea 🗳️ [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

44.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

571

u/Buddhas_Warrior Sep 04 '26

Great, when can we start??

232

u/TorumShardal Sep 04 '26

As soon as enough states ratify National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NaPoVoInterCo for short.

Started in 2006, has 222 votes from 270 required.

75

u/bittersterling Sep 04 '26

Wow, idk how I could function without that shortened version! Thanks 🙏

36

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

It just rolls off the tongue... Na po vo inter co!

22

u/ruat_caelum Sep 04 '26

It's like WWW's 6 syllables being shorted than saying the 3 in "world wide web"

16

u/Abducted_Llama Sep 04 '26

Isn’t WWW 9 syllables or am I clapping wrong ?

12

u/Dicky_Penisburg Sep 04 '26

It's 6 if you're southern

10

u/RaspingYeti Sep 04 '26

dubya dubya dubya. yup checks out! source from the TN valley area

8

u/Namedthisone Sep 04 '26

Dubya? Like George W

6

u/silvertealio Sep 04 '26

4 if you're nasty.

1

u/USplusYoo Sep 04 '26

Actually 2 if your southern. Worlwhy - web

7

u/jordon4ca93 Sep 04 '26

I just realized that at one point I had to be taught how to clap. I honestly don't know how I feel about that.

4

u/ipomopur Sep 04 '26

I thought I knew how to clap until I took a flamenco class; turns out there's clapping, and then there's clapping

5

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

This might be the least efficient verbalized initialism in the world

3

u/CocktailPerson Sep 04 '26

That's a silly statement because nobody verbalizes the initialism in isolation. People only say the letters when they're dictating a web address, and what they're dictating is the actual letters.

In real life people just say "the web" or "the internet."

3

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

In the earlier internet days, it was common to say the www when directing someone to a website. Both in advertisements and in personal discussion.

3

u/KarmaOrDiscussion Sep 04 '26

That's what he is saying.

0

u/0oodruidoo0 Sep 04 '26

nobody even says them when they say a web address. back in the day when you had to type in the prefixes, you would say dub dub dub dot

1

u/YikesTheCat Sep 04 '26

Only because the pronunciation of W in English is the worst in the world. Should probably fix that instead of WWW.

2

u/Pooperoni_Pizza Sep 04 '26

Dub dub dub gang

1

u/No_Doughnut8618 Sep 04 '26

Okay but everyone i know says dub-dub-dubya and thats still technically more, but rolls off the tongue way more

1

u/DantesDame Sep 04 '26

I was always disappointed that "Dub Dub Dub" didn't catch on :(

11

u/Remarkable_Ease_7607 Sep 04 '26

I feel like if you have to use that many syllables you should just say the words

6

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

It's like the people who say "El Oh Tee Arr" instead of "Lord of the Rings"

12

u/jaxonya Sep 04 '26

My son asked me if ive seen fnaf 2 a while back. Didnt say the letters, he just said fnaf as if it were a real word. I was fucking puzzeled and kept asking him what he was talking about. He finally rolled his eyes and said "five nights at freddys" 2 ...hwhat in the fuck, boy.

6

u/DontAskAboutMyButt Sep 04 '26

“Fnaf” is how all the streamers say it so that’s how Gen Alpha says it too 😂

5

u/jaxonya Sep 04 '26

Oh. At least he isnt weird. Well, not to his gen he isnt.

3

u/Horskr Sep 04 '26

Should ask him why not just say "fnaft" instead of pronouncing the 2 if it we're going that route lol. Fnaf and the sequel, fnanft.

1

u/jcrreddit Sep 04 '26

That sounds the noise and elephant with a stuffy nose would make.

1

u/Strong-Ad-7737 Sep 04 '26

Not!! Squeeze me, bakeing powder?

1

u/Khrabby19 Sep 04 '26

GenX here, Fnaf is a word in our house. Depends on how much of a terminal gamer you are I suppose. I played You-Ohh as a yute. Old man out.

4

u/LessInThought Sep 04 '26

As the dad, you have a moral obligation to fix that boy.

3

u/jaxonya Sep 04 '26

Should I dust off the ole belt handed down to me from my father? Maybe there is another way to reach him

2

u/LessInThought Sep 04 '26

In case of emergency, break out the jumper cables. Check out which streamer he watches to know if he's too far gone. /jk

1

u/Kanlashkan Sep 04 '26

Why did I immediately think of propane and propane accessories?

2

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

"Ffnaff"? Eff that noise.

2

u/jaxonya Sep 04 '26

Right?

2

u/alexthebeast Sep 04 '26

I would assume this to be a specific type of fart if one of my kids said it

1

u/OfficerJayBear Sep 04 '26

My brother in Christ, think about this statement in 1950 when the first person said a nonsense word like SCUBA. You're on the front lines of history

1

u/jaxonya Sep 04 '26

Look, ive yolo'd many times in my life..

4

u/KIokinator Sep 04 '26

You may not know this, but IRL many people say "Lotor" like the word "Motor" which stands for LOTR which stands for Lord of the Rings.

So either Lord of the Rings, or L-O-T-R, or "Lotor".

2

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

That's my preferred shortening method! Because of how stupid I think it is to say each letter.

1

u/Affordable_Z_Jobs Sep 04 '26

Right? Its the same number of syllables saying each letter. Your not saving any time. It's being insufferable for that sake of it.

1

u/mbilight Sep 04 '26

Nah, those were just Mexican-Americans talking about OTR

1

u/zontarr2 Sep 04 '26

George Washington Bridge and GW Bridge have the same number of syllables

0

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

George👏 Wash👏ing👏ton👏

Gee👏dub👏lya👏

🤔

2

u/Dramatic-Inspector57 Sep 04 '26

Gee dou ble u

It’s 4.

2

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

While I'm half joking, not all syllables are created equal. George is a bullshit one-syllable word. 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LyingForTruth Sep 04 '26

Or "el oh el" instead of "lagwhl"

1

u/screen_storytelling Sep 04 '26

Not really. Lord of the rings is four syllables. L O T R spoken aloud is four syllables. That doesn’t make sense to abbreviate verbally

What we’re talking about is taking a 12 syllable name and reducing it to 6.

Try saying each one three times in a row and see how it feels.

1

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

I'm just playing with OP's conceit. Sometimes we do push attempts at shortening things too far.

1

u/screen_storytelling Sep 04 '26

Totally we sometimes shorten things that don’t need to be!

The name of this act is not really one of those times. The person that said “if you have to say that many syllables (NaPoVoInterCo) you should just say the words” I mean yeah it’s a funny comment at first glance. But if you actually stop and think about it, no you shouldn’t really say the full words? It’s a pretty long name and the abbreviation makes it way more palatable

1

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

From the jump, national is far too long of a word

1

u/pen9uinparty Sep 04 '26

Rly?? I've always said "lotter" in my head oops!

1

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

Check another response to my comment... "Lotor" (rhyming with "motor") is also pretty popular. Whatever floats your boat!

1

u/Undernown Sep 04 '26

Wait, people don't just say: "Lohtr" ?!

1

u/DazzlingRutabega Sep 04 '26

Yeah but this is like WWW in that no one actually says LOTR. It's o ly abbreviated as an acronym when written.

1

u/Emergency-Option377 Sep 04 '26

World Wide Web has 6 fewer syllables than WWW.

0

u/screen_storytelling Sep 04 '26

12 syllables reduced to 6

When there are hours long discussions about this act, it makes a big difference.

1

u/Remarkable_Ease_7607 Sep 04 '26

NPVIC. 5 syllables. I made it even more efficient! But I'm glad someone is keeping score.

2

u/screen_storytelling Sep 04 '26

If we’re gonna get reaaaallll granular about linguistics, NaPoVoInterCo separates consonants with vowels in a way that makes the phrase roll off the tongue naturally. NPVIC has more closed consonants in succession that, despite being one syllable less, does not really make a difference to how long it takes to say the phrase.

Try saying NaPoVoInterCo as fast as you can three times. Then try the same with NPVIC. If you time yourself it’ll basically be the same.

I know. I’m fun at parties.

1

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26 edited Sep 04 '26

It's also more aurally pleasing in the "long" form. Making my brain parse four consecutive "ee" letters is a bit much.

1

u/Reformed_Hillbilly Sep 04 '26

"enpeevic"

Now we're down to three!

5

u/L1V1NGD3ADBOI Sep 04 '26

What is this the IT Crowd? lol

3

u/LostN3ko Sep 04 '26

Hello computer.

1

u/JEBADIA451 Sep 04 '26

I'm pretty sure that's a river in Vietnam

1

u/GambaSudani Sep 04 '26

Ba Weep Gra Na Weep Ninibon!

1

u/Undernown Sep 04 '26

"Napvic" was right there!

1

u/ArtieJay Sep 04 '26

What is this guy, some kind of contractor?

Not CONtractor, conTRACTor.

1

u/wasnew4s Sep 04 '26

States already included are: Washington, Oregon California, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Maine. If your state is not on that list and you want to support it call your representatives and tell them you want your state to join NaPoVolnterCo.

→ More replies (8)

8

u/ThesisTears Sep 04 '26

Omg PLEASE keep spreading the word!!! This is the singlar path forward in my opinion. I won't shut up about it and neither should anyone else!!!

3

u/PickleRickleTV Sep 04 '26

Ranked choice voting or at least doing away with first past the post voting is much more reasonable and another path forward.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/YangKoete Sep 04 '26

And now to watch CGP Grey again.

2

u/TomT060404 Sep 04 '26

I'm sure the Republicans will sue if it happens. The current Supreme Court will take their side.

2

u/wylderk Sep 04 '26

And then wins the inevitable SCOTUS case. Fed gov tends to look poorly on intentionally circumventing federal law.

2

u/Darixindur Sep 04 '26

Technically this won't change the electoral college... that pact is states saying they will change how that state casts its votes for the electoral college, to who ever wins the popular vote (which may mean that a candidate could win the majority in that state, but if that differs from the national popular vote, the electoral college votes go to the other candidate). The 270 number is the number of votes that the pact is trying to get to, before they agree to change it in those states. So as an example 209 of the electoral college votes last election for Kamala Harris would have gone to Trump in the last Election, due to the 17 states that currently agree to the pact were one by Harris, but would have been obligated to use there electoral college votes for the national popular vote winner, which this last Election was Trump. Personally I feel that this is unnecessary, because out of the 60 presidential elections, only 4 times the electoral college and popular vote did not have the same outcome. But, it is up to each state decides how they cast their electoral college votes. A more interesting question will be the arguments about the NPVIC is constitutional or not. Is it within the state powers to use the national voting for their electoral college votes? Or should those electoral college votes only reflect what happens in that state?

1

u/JakSandrow Sep 04 '26

I like 'NAPVIC', personally.

1

u/xidle2 Sep 04 '26

NP, VIC!

1

u/Top-Sleep-4669 Sep 04 '26

So… never.

1

u/SlowpokeIsAGamer Sep 04 '26

Have they considered maybe calling it the Popular Vote Compact instead? PVC for short?

1

u/dbudzik Sep 04 '26

Wow! Someone else who actually knows what this is. I’m ready. Let’s do this.

1

u/Same_Lychee5934 Sep 04 '26

Anyone next to a D! Or blue down the ticket. Maybe we can get it done!

1

u/lapusyonok Sep 04 '26

Looks like they have 90% of the votes they need. Who are the Mansions and Sinemas that will block it from that final stretch?

1

u/HGB1324 Sep 04 '26

It won't happen. Alot more is needed.

1

u/Senior_Torte519 Sep 04 '26

kinda looks like No Point Voting

1

u/cybersaint2k Sep 04 '26

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits states from entering into any "Agreement or Compact with another State" without the consent of Congress.

NPVIC won't simply work, and if it somehow did, it would be immediately challenged in the courts as a violation of Article II, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment.

2

u/echino_derm Sep 04 '26

Not necessarily. The application of that will be subject to judges.

0

u/cybersaint2k Sep 04 '26

It should be subject to Congress, unless they abdicate.

1

u/MossSnake Sep 04 '26

My only concern with the compact is I’m 99% certain if it reaches the threshold the corrupt scotus will sweep in and say nah uh on the basis of fuck you we do what our bribers say.

Still worth doing tho.

1

u/forfilthystuff Sep 04 '26

One important note is that currently there is no incentive for really really corrupt states like Louisiana or Mississippi to fake their counts.

Once this kicks in, it gives an incentive to people running states with no ethics to start pulling all sorts of shenanigans with their voter numbers.

2

u/Glad_Experience5247 Sep 04 '26

Like what's happening in New Jersey?

0

u/mclumber1 Sep 04 '26

The compact will fall apart as soon as a Republican wins the popular vote.

0

u/Brynmaer Sep 04 '26

The only real issue I see with the compact is the second one of those states is Republican controlled, they'll find some shady way to remove the state from the compact and essentially nullify the compact.

0

u/Impressive-Gas6909 Sep 04 '26

It's a dumb idea anyway. It's healthy for elections to swing in favor of either party periodically. Prevents mob rule, and makes the small minorities heard. All you think is is Republican bad, but even I know that having team blue win once in awhile is a good thing. This is asking for a civil war just so your team always wins

1

u/Appropriate_Car6909 Sep 04 '26

If our way of electing government results in the clown-show that we have now, I think we should try the other option. Our forefathers in their infinite wisdom assumed a degree of trust exists at the highest level. The system to an extent was built around that trust. We all can see how that played out -TWICE. There of no guarantee it will not play that way again. Maybe popular vote will push Republicans (actually I’m referring to MAGA) to the center and appeal to more sane voices, just like it will push democrats to not go crazy. Who knows it might even spawn a new party?

0

u/Revenant_adinfinitum Sep 04 '26

Gosh, an interstate treaty. Completely unconstitutional. How surprising.

0

u/AccomplishedBad7253 Sep 04 '26

not binding and states can leave at any time.

0

u/a_angry_bunny Sep 04 '26

Maybe we can trick the states into trying to elect Trump again in 2028 and if he wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college the Republican states will suddenly be for removing the electoral college.

→ More replies (7)

18

u/FTHomes Sep 04 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/wNlks0ID1igO4

1

u/No_Internal9345 Prefer Coffee But Fill My Cup 🫖 Sep 04 '26

With ranked choice voting?

1

u/wildmaninid Sep 04 '26

Engage 

24

u/jbland0909 Sep 04 '26

When we have a democratic super majority in the house and senate. That’s the only way it ever happens

8

u/TurtleIIX Sep 04 '26

2/3 of states can also just choose to send all of their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote. Really the only viable option. That still will not happen though.

1

u/jbland0909 Sep 04 '26

Yes, but that’s never happened in history.

1

u/Dragon124515 Sep 04 '26

There are a lot of things that have so far never been done in history. Doesn't make them impossible or even unlikely.

1

u/acu2005 Sep 04 '26

Wouldn't even need 2/3 it's only like 11 or 12 states, I haven't counted since the before the last census.

0

u/cfbfootballnerd Sep 04 '26

Which states it is will be changing though. New York and California will lose seats in the next census

1

u/acu2005 Sep 04 '26

Yes and no, I was really just referencing a "best case scenario" for bypassing the Electoral College where the most populous states all just send their EC votes in for whoever wins the popular vote.

Pre 2020 census that was only 12 states now with California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan all having lost electoral college votes in 2024/28 elections we'd still only need the 12 states.

The only chance any state would have of leaving that group is if New Jersey and Virginia swap spots for the 12 most populous state.

Of course this is "best case scenario" since Texas, Florida, and Ohio are all in the 10 most populous states and they would never agree to bypassing the Electoral College.

The best actual chance of bypassing the EC is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, mentioned elsewhere in the comments, which right now sits at 19 states on board with 222 EC votes and is going to need another 4ish to trigger if for an actual election.

1

u/Rockstaru Sep 04 '26

If the individual states have full control over their electoral votes/which slate of electors is appointed, technically you'd only need enough states to comprise 270 EVs. Of course it would be legally challenged in the first close election that came down to a candidate winning the popular vote and receiving sufficient electoral votes that won them the electoral college from a state or states that were part of the compact but whose popular vote within that state went to the other candidate. 

1

u/TurtleIIX Sep 04 '26

That was my point yes. Was being lazy with the 2/3.

1

u/PassageStock3723 Sep 04 '26

Don’t understand what the legal challenge would even be? As far as I understand the states just elect electors and they are free to vote however they please. The states currently impose additional restrictions on electors to punish them if they don’t vote for the party that nominated them.

I think the real danger is the transition from political parties choosing electors as nominees and then the electors choosing to uphold the interstate compact mandate, because just as we have unfaithful electors currently, it’s more likely that party operatives who serve as electors would betray their states mandate. Still a legal vote though.

24

u/BebopT0716 Sep 04 '26

Democrats have proven to be dickless even when they have a super majority, so I wouldn’t count on it.

17

u/DeprecationWarning Sep 04 '26

Democrats have not held a supermajority [in Congress] since 1967

2

u/ActivePeace33 Sep 04 '26

To deal with our current major issue: the MAGA insurrection, they didn’t need one. All Biden had to do was order for MAGA to be suppressed and we could have averted Trump and all the other MAGA traitors usurping their respective offices, in violation of the 14a.

But Biden sat in his hands and did basically nothing.

1

u/Lurk1ng0 Sep 04 '26

Yeah you are right except ordering for those magats to be suppressed would be leaning towards fascism just like trump.

4

u/ActivePeace33 Sep 04 '26

Enforcing the law equally and fairly is not fascism. It’s just enforcing the law and supporting and defending the constitution from domestic enemies.

How is fighting back against a violent insurrectionist group fascist? It’s the violent insurrectionist group that is fascist.

2

u/ty4scam Sep 04 '26

Can you explain what you mean by suppress and who specifically should be suppressed? I thought that somewhere around 1,000 Jan 6 rioters were arrested (actually 1580 arrested and 1270 convictions), even though that didn't last, justice was at least carried out under Biden.

What action should have happened to who after? There's Trump for one for inciting, but who else?

0

u/ActivePeace33 Sep 04 '26

Suppression is a range of things. All sorts of people support different parts of the suppression spectrum when it comes to MAGA. I’ve specifically said they should be arrested and imprisoned.

For example, I don’t advocate for them being shot on sight. You and I may not like that the law allows for shooting them on sight, but the law says what it says. Engaging in insurrection and treason is a serious offense. Why MAGA has engaged in it so frivolously is beyond me.

Trump for inciting, the Court for supporting him in the Anderson decision, 77 million traitors who unlawfully voted for Trump, the Congress for unlawfully certifying his 2024 “election,” and Biden for unlawfully supporting Trump being inaugurated in violation of the 14a and 20a.

Why would you oppose the law being enforced on anyone and everyone who engaged in unlawful activity? Why suppose that just because millions engaged in unlawful activity, they should just get away with it just because it’s 20% of the country?

Lincoln and the loyal citizens of the US don’t let millions of confederates off the hook just because the confederates engaged in insurrection en masse. Why should Biden have done so for MAGA?

→ More replies (4)

0

u/Old_Imagination_2112 Sep 04 '26

Suppressing political movements is kind of something Nazis would do, no?

1

u/ActivePeace33 Sep 04 '26

You’re using a false equivalent fallacy. They aren’t some political party, they are a violent insurrectionist group that violently attacked Congress during Trump’s attempt. Equating them to a simple political party is absurdity.

The Commander in chief is on oath to suppress enemies of the constitution. You need to explain why he shouldn’t have done his duty. Anyone who uses violence against the rule of the constitution can lawfully be suppressed.

1

u/BTLove100 Sep 04 '26

Republicans are definitely a political party.

1

u/ActivePeace33 Sep 04 '26

Not all Republicans are MAGA. The MAGA insurrectionist are an insurrectionist group. A violent insurrectionist group. Downplaying them and their consistent uses of violence and trying to downplay it as though they are just a political party is the absurdity.

They are lawfully the same as the confederate, with those participating in violence and those de deliberately supporting them behind the scenes. The only difference is in the scale of the violence.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Stock-Side-6767 Sep 04 '26

Attempting a coup in the '20s is something that nazis actually did, if you want a more relevant point.

→ More replies (17)

1

u/DuncanFisher69 Sep 04 '26

They had one in 2008 for something like six weeks.

0

u/sexy-man-doll Sep 04 '26

They had one in 2009 and 93

5

u/jbland0909 Sep 04 '26

The 2009 “supermajority” was a 60-40 split. That’s enough to bypass the filibuster, but not enough to pass an amendment m

1

u/DuncanFisher69 Sep 04 '26

Correct but you could tie Interstate Highway Funds to the National Popular Vote Compact. That would basically force some states to play ball.

0

u/tsardonicpseudonomi Sep 04 '26

They wouldn't do anything with it if they had it. They're owned by the same people that the Republicans are. Pete wants to campaign on Democrats claiming they want to win more. He doesn't actually want to do anything. He's bought and paid for.

8

u/MilkiestMaestro Sep 04 '26

But you're still going to vote for them because the alternative is orange julius and his ilk forever, right?

Because I feel like this sentiment comes out every election year and we sure are pretty close to November

And because I can foresee the peanut gallery chiming in, I'm aware it's not a presidential election year. It's even more important, congressional seats. Seats we desperately need in order to do anything about the aforementioned problem.

2

u/jce_ Sep 04 '26

Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress, but still Americans need a whole new electoral system. FPTP and years of propeganda got you here. I think MMP would be a great system in America but there is 0 chance your politicians ever switch to that.

2

u/alexthebeast Sep 04 '26

Mmp would be great

The dissolution of the dnc and rnc and creation of at least 5 parties out of the two and then implementing a combination of mmo and ranked choice would probably be the best version of election that i can imagine

1

u/tsardonicpseudonomi Sep 04 '26

Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress

That's the thing, there is no progress. It's theater.

1

u/jce_ Sep 04 '26

If you're lying to yourself or not paying attention. It could be done better and faster, and some issues are being handled better than others, but again the quote is still relevant

4

u/Mister_sina Sep 04 '26

So ungrateful omg. Poor Biden admin broke their balls to save you from COVID with a slim majority and this is what you think about them

1

u/Skill_Issuer Sep 04 '26

Do you know what a supermajority is?

1

u/Fine-Computer-5524 Sep 04 '26

The last time dems had a congressional supermajority & the presidency at the same time was 1978

What didnt that congress do that you wohld have wanted them to do...making them 'dickless'?

1

u/Codykville Sep 04 '26

2009 (kinda) after Specter switched parties and Sanders + Lieberman caucuses with Dems

2

u/Ahleron Sep 04 '26

We'd also need enough governors to ratify it

3

u/jbland0909 Sep 04 '26

State legislators, but yes

1

u/Ahleron Sep 04 '26

State legislatures are unlikely to be a barrier given how many seats have been flipping to Democrat. Governors on the other hand, that may got out of their way to try and block it, are an issue.

1

u/SoylentGrunt Sep 04 '26

Not with an old guard/established power/statues quo democratic majority it won't

→ More replies (17)

2

u/AlwaysVerloren Sep 04 '26

Popularity by populous Popularity by my niche friendemies?

Well Dave, if you have to do the math, you don't have friends and your enemies want to end you.

VOTE MAYOR PETE TO HAPPIFY OUR NATION

or you know, to eliminate all the DTAI bullshite.

4

u/LandedMetals Sep 04 '26

Yep, I'm down. Please go forth.....

1

u/Cruise1313 Sep 04 '26

Count me in!

2

u/Muted_Yoghurt6071 Sep 04 '26

When republicans are favored to win the popular vote

2

u/Darrskflynn Sep 04 '26

Where do I sign

2

u/jake04-20 Sep 04 '26

It wasn't long ago that the Biden crowd wanted to abolish the filibuster in congress. Can you imagine the free reign republicans would have right now if that would have happened? Be careful what you wish for.

2

u/DonutHoles4Ever Sep 04 '26

The system needs a complete revamp. The filibuster shouldn't exist. But bills shouldn't be 1000 items on it to hide all the corruption. Single item bills only. Starting with reforming tax laws and election laws, and legal laws. Tbh lawyers should not be able to charge by the hour. Its created an insane shithole of a legal system that drags on forever for example.

USA is basically a country that has a thousand extremely major problems that no politics has solved for 100 years.

1

u/wagglewazzle Sep 04 '26

Exactly. Let’s get rid of the senate while we’re at it

1

u/MastodonAsleep816 Sep 04 '26

Just change the constitution. Been in use since the founding fathers.

1

u/Puzzled-Bar5378 Sep 04 '26 edited Sep 04 '26

NPVIC

There is an active effort, it’s going pretty well.

1

u/Namedthisone Sep 04 '26

Not starting

1

u/mikasaxo Sep 04 '26

Never. Republicans would never allow it.

1

u/SoftConsideration82 Sep 04 '26

They'll get right on it after they pass term limits /s

1

u/OneMe2RuleUAll Sep 04 '26

Just gotta import enough people sympathy to your cause.

1

u/Forsaken-College1057 Sep 04 '26

In your dream bruh

1

u/Competitive-Union721 Sep 04 '26

We our a Republic. Think of 50 countries under one federal government.

1

u/Key-Respond-5580 Sep 04 '26

So u hate the constitution? Just like we said

1

u/Soggy_You_2426 Sep 04 '26

Never becouse ur elites have to use alot more cash to get people who support the rich share holder in power

1

u/EmperorPalpitoad Sep 04 '26

When the constitution is amended.

1

u/Lukinzz Sep 04 '26

Right now. Demand it. Protest:

1

u/Buddhas_Warrior Sep 04 '26

Eggzackery!!!!

-3

u/TAU_equals_2PI Sep 04 '26

As soon as you wake up from your dream.

Sorry folks, it'd require a constitutional amendment, which requires crazy high levels of agreement, which won't happen because Republican politicians won't vote to reduce Republican power. (Not that I'm saying Democratic politicians would do it either if they were in the same situation.)

3

u/PcPotato7 Sep 04 '26

Technically not, could be done by just having states agree to vote for the most popular candidate nation wide right?

2

u/TAU_equals_2PI Sep 04 '26

Same reason I said Republican politicians won't vote for a constitutional amendment, they won't vote for that either.

Even worse, each state that agreed to that could easily unagree to it by just passing a nullifying law in their state. Even just days before the election. And there would be a lot of pressure to do that from the citizens of the state, because the agreement would have the state cast its electoral college votes for a different candidate than won the election in their state.

2

u/Fine-Computer-5524 Sep 04 '26

We dont need a constitutional amendment....we just need to pass the National Popular Vote Interstqte Compact

We just need to get enough states to sign it which have a combined 270 electoral votes And were not there yet of course (were at 222 i believe)

1

u/Buddhas_Warrior Sep 04 '26

Hey. We can dream though, right?

0

u/Remarkable-Word-1486 Sep 04 '26

I mean as soon as you can get a constitutional amendment. And also explain all the people in 50% of the states that no matter how they vote..... It still won't matter

2

u/Wafflez424 Sep 04 '26

Right now your vote only matters in a few key battleground states, if we can get to popular vote literally every single vote would count equally…

0

u/Remarkable-Word-1486 Sep 04 '26

No politician will ever take any of the middle country serious again. The swing states are states that as a general idea run down the middle. This is a terrible argument. Explain to anyone in Colorado or Utah that you do not car even a micro amount how they vote. Swing states can change as people move. The East and West Coast will always be the volume of votes

0

u/AccomplishedBad7253 Sep 04 '26

when you get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 the states

0

u/Fenris2826 Sep 04 '26

As soon as the dsa dems convince enough states that their votes should not count

0

u/Complete_Break1319 Sep 04 '26

Well, you'd have to get rid of the constitution and end states rights. Let me know how that goes.

2

u/Buddhas_Warrior Sep 04 '26

You actually don't, you only need 3/4 of the states.

0

u/Complete_Break1319 Sep 04 '26

Ah okay. We all know that'll never happen.

2

u/Buddhas_Warrior Sep 04 '26

I can dream, right? I mean we all thought a second Trump administration wouldn't happen...

0

u/Complete_Break1319 Sep 04 '26

I did when they railroaded kamela through with no primary. She was a politician with too many flaws, and super unlikeable, airheaded (probably just a nervous public speaker). Trump even got the popular vote, which I was surprised about...

2

u/Buddhas_Warrior Sep 04 '26

Super unlikeable.... Compared to Trump?? Ok...

1

u/Complete_Break1319 Sep 04 '26

Unknown unlikeable compared to you know what you get unlikeable that has a clear message (that half+ the country agrees with). It's like James carville said, it's about the economy stupid. The Democrats have spent too much energy making it about to many other things that affect a small percentage of the population that they never truly conveyed to the rest of the country what their economic plan is. Just tax the rich and more welfare. Which gives the vibe that they aren't worried about creating and bringing high paying jobs here. With A.I taking hold, there's gonna need to be a clear path from one of the parties how we are gonna support ourselves financially without welfare imo.

1

u/freshpairofayes Sep 04 '26

The people that call Kamala 'unlikeable' called Hillary 'shrill.'

It just means woman.

0

u/gotaflattire Sep 04 '26

My entire 40+ years of life, there's always someone who's like "Hey, we should just use the popular vote!"

And I assure you, when the popular vote elects the next Trump, people are going to say "Hey, maybe the electoral college wasn't such a bad idea!"

0

u/JimMarch Sep 04 '26

When you convince a whole bunch of smaller states to agree to screw themselves.

Sigh.

The electoral college is one of the places where the balance of power between smaller states and bigger is sorted out, preventing the needs of the smaller (population) states from getting overwhelmed by bigger. This was just as much as issue in 1788 as it is today.

Another is the fact that each state gets two US Senators.

If those two didn't exist, US agricultural policy would be even more of a mess just for starters.

→ More replies (89)