Opinion | Here Is One Way to Steal the Presidential Election
www.nytimes.com
The most dangerous strategy we could imagine to subvert the vote was made possible by the Supreme Court itself.

The scenario we see as the most alarming was made possible by the Supreme Court itself. In a 2020 decision, the court held, in our reading, that state legislatures have the power to direct electors on how to cast their electoral votes. And this opens the door to what we think is the most dangerous strategy: that a legislature would pass a law that directs electors to vote for the candidate the legislature picks.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240124124427/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/22/opinion/election-president-steal-democracy.html

  • thesystemisdown@lemmy.worldEnglish
    181·
    6 months ago

    …NPV seems like a Swiss cheese solution that will never work.

    It seems like a simple premise to me. The candidate with the most votes wins. What am I missing?

    I do agree that efforts are best made elsewhere at this time. Sadly, that case can probably always be made, which is why we may never have a properly functioning democracy.

      • thesystemisdown@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        6 months ago

        It won’t happen before November, and a lot is on the line. We can always do more than one thing at a time, but it’s difficult to get anyone to do anything in the first place.

        • SoylentBlake@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          6 months ago

          Change as you’re describing will never happen if Republicans control any part of governemnt. Change also won’t happen under Democrats unless it’s aligned with corporate interests, tho, Democrats are conciliatory to social change once protesting starts to damage profitability.

          I wish I were wrong about that, but that’s the options we have. Authoritarian’s backed by Big Oil or the public punching bag to oligarchical authoritarianism. Progressives might be moving the platform but the likelihood of public interest resulting in the passing of law is still statistically null, which has been quantifiably proven multiple times over the past 30 years.

          We are free to spend our money on the things that keep us productive workers and that’s it. In my eyes that’s just slavery with more steps.

    • Galapagon@sh.itjust.works
      5·
      6 months ago

      3rd party candidates still don’t have a chance because they “can’t get the votes” Ranked choice is basically npv, but I can have my first choice be the person I don’t think will have enough, then fall back to the big parties as necessary.

    • Pretzilla@lemmy.world
      1·
      6 months ago

      Yes, it’s attractive in its simplicity, but here are two pitfalls that come to mind:

      1. Only blue states will enact it, so its reach will be limited
      2. Unless controls against dropping out are somehow enshrined, it will only take one purple state to go red and drop out, nullifying the purpose