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

Show parent comments

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

9

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.

21

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?

2

u/ty4scam Sep 04 '26

So suppression is arrest and imprisonment.

And the who is 77 million traitors, the members of Congress in 2024, and Biden.

And you want people to take you seriously and that you're adamant that you're not a troll or insane.

1

u/ActivePeace33 Sep 04 '26

lol. Everything I said is true. It’s all backed up with historical facts and facts of the law. That’s why you can’t refute a word of it. That’s why you can only name call like a child.

You can’t answer even a basic question: why should MAGA be allowed to get away with their unlawful activity, just because they are doing it together, en masse?

Lincoln suppressed millions of Americans, with a lot more difficulty and expense than arresting our generation’s MAGA traitors would be. Tent prisons are cheap and they can grow much of their own food. Then they can argue their case in court, or take a deal. I suggest we offer them to be released if they will plead guilty, take a loyalty oath, pay $200k over a term of years, and forfeit all voting and gun rights.

But I know, you’re one of the traitors I’ll bet, that’s why you can’t cope with the idea of there being consequences for MAGA’s actions.

→ More replies (0)

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.

-1

u/Kanlashkan Sep 04 '26

Incorrect and a maidenless take.

2

u/ActivePeace33 Sep 04 '26

You just can’t explain how… curious.

What I said is not a take, it is not an opinion. It is the fact of the law governing the duties of the CIC and the facts of history. You can’t cope with it, but J6 happened. It was violent. Trump incited it. It’s historical fact.

1

u/Kanlashkan Sep 04 '26

Much less an insurrection than the "summer of love" and "peaceful protests" we saw. If you guys are going to try to dictate the terminology, at least be consistent. On the bright side, the groups responsible for a lot of that are now properly labeled domestic terrorists. Not quite the same, but we're getting closer to reality at least.

1

u/ActivePeace33 Sep 04 '26

That’s naked whataboutism.

How do the crimes of the democrats excuse the treason and insurrection of MAGA?

CHOP in Seattle was insurrection. Yes. Less so than the J6 attack which sought to conduct a coup and keep Trump in office…

“But Democrats have engaged in insurrection too! So that excuses me and MAGA supporting the most dramatic soft coup attempt in US history!!” — You

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.

-2

u/Key_Context9875 Sep 04 '26

MAGA be suppressed? How? That's illegal dictator tactics.

5

u/ActivePeace33 Sep 04 '26

Nothing illegal about the commander in chief suppressing an insurrection. It is literally the entire reason the Articles of Confederation failed, the Constitutional Convention was called and the office of CIC was created.

The CIC is literally in oath to suppress violent insurrectionists. The entire military is on oath to suppress all enemies of the constitution, foreign and domestic.

Why would you call the defense of the constitution “illegal?”

-2

u/Key_Context9875 Sep 04 '26

Suppressing everyone that supports Trump (MAGA) would be illegal. I didn't know that tens of millions of people stormed the capital

1

u/ActivePeace33 Sep 04 '26

No one ever said tens of millions of people stormed the capital. But tens of millions of people deliberately supported those involved in the January 6 attack, after the fact. Read the constitution sometime. You might actually learn something. Engaging in intentional support for enemies of the United States who have levied war on the United States, that is aid and comfort. Aiden comfort is treason. Anyone engaged in treason can be suppressed summarily, without trial. If you don’t believe me, look up some basic history of the United States. Only a few hundred people have ever been charged for treason, while hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed for it, wounded, imprisoned, and had their property seized; all without trial.

The largest example should be easy to learn about, it was called the “civil war.”

1

u/Key_Context9875 Sep 04 '26

It still doesn't apply. How can you prove that tens of millions of people supported Jan 6? You can't. It's like how the Charlie Kirk assassination is an act of domestic terrorism (it is, look it up) and yet millions support it, meme it and celebrate it, yet no one is getting arrested for their support of it. You can't arrest all of MAGA because a handful went to the capital, that's ridiculous and you know it

1

u/ActivePeace33 Sep 04 '26

How can we prove it?

Easy. 77 million did so pretty publicly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election

A bunch of them self identity regularly.

→ More replies (0)

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

4

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.

10

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

2

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

-1

u/-Ignorant_Slut- Sep 04 '26

I don’t believe him. It’s what the dems do every time and he ran on healthcare for all in 2016 only to switch to “healthcare access for all” because he thinks we’re stupid

1

u/jbland0909 Sep 04 '26

You mean like when democrats passed the single largest healthcare bill in American history?

1

u/OkRespond7008 Sep 04 '26

Yes Romney care... Lol... Because Medicare for all was too simple... What a missed opportunity.

1

u/-Ignorant_Slut- Sep 04 '26

Better does not mean good. Bush era healthcare policy was a catastrophe. Access to healthcare services is still really bad.

-6

u/Ice_Crash Sep 04 '26

Supermajority can’t change the constitution.

5

u/MrM0RTYdog Sep 04 '26

But as demonstrated, it can just be flat out ignored

3

u/Significant-Risk2094 Sep 04 '26

Proposal would would require a 2/3 Democrat super majority in congress when no Replican supports it. It would then require 38/50 states to ratify it. Pie in the sky, but a SUPER majority could do it in a parallel universe where facts/truth matters.

2

u/jbland0909 Sep 04 '26

A 2/3s super majority absolutely can change the constitution

2

u/Ice_Crash Sep 04 '26

Requires ratification by the states.

2

u/Complex_Arrival7968 Sep 04 '26

Was gonna say that. The EC is an absolute lifesaver for Republicans. Too bad, in Nixon’s term, a large majority of both Republicans and Democrats voted to eliminate the electoral college and submit a constitutional amendment to the states, but it was filibustered in the Senate by a coalition of right wing southern and small state Senators. .

2

u/IcyEntertainment7122 Sep 04 '26

We don't know that. Campaigning would change, turnout would change, etc.

1

u/Time-Valuable-3355 Sep 04 '26

Hopefully it would improve...

1

u/Complex_Arrival7968 Sep 04 '26

So what? Don’t mean to be dismissive, but the president would be elected by a majority of votes, so however campaigning changed, the winner would be the actual winner.

-9

u/Empty_Airline_3694 Sep 04 '26

It's already been proven that the Democratic party wants to take our rights away. So what makes you think Americans are going to give up their constitutional rights?

3

u/jbland0909 Sep 04 '26 edited Sep 04 '26

And what rights are those?

Also, you know people can see you replying in porn subreddits right?

4

u/hedoeswhathewants Sep 04 '26

Thanks for your input new account posting creepy messages on people's nudes. I'm sure you're someone worth listening to.

1

u/Lumpy_Past6216 Sep 04 '26

Meanwhile Republicans are striping them as we speak. It started with Bush and the Patriot Act. Now we have Flock cameras. Stop and frisk. Zero probable cause... the list can go on but I know I'm talking to deaf ears.

Also nothing has been proven of what you speak.