No doubt there will be a legal battle, but there are 6 states with pending votes, and those six would be enough to cross the 270 electoral vote threshold. The legal battle will hopefully bring it into greater public consciousness.
It only needs approval from enough states to total 270 electoral votes among themselves to kick in, because those states will have pledged their electoral votes to the popular winner, even if the vote in any of those states favors another candidate. This is covered in the Wikipedia article linked above.
No, it won’t. That is how change has been sold for the last 40 years, and people are not only being paid significantly less, housing is quickly becoming too scarce for everyone to obtain too.
If meaningful change happens, it will because people revolted.
Pressure must be applied from many sources for real change to occur. Ballot power, media power, people power, any lever we can find. We should not fault others for passionately pursuing the changes they can make. This is a war with many fronts.
Pressure must be applied from many sources for real change to occur.
Yet without a real, existential threat, nothing meaningful is going to change. Hell, we just saw Roe go up in smoke while Democrats had the presidency AND Congress. Their response to this massive loss of liberty was to fundraise.
Nothing is going to change this trajectory except the Marsha P. Johnson school of brick throwing.
To be fair: Democrats also did absolutely nothing to get their SCOTUS nominee confirmed when Obama was president, though since we saw them exploit the Roe leak to make a cool $80,000,000, we kinda know where their priorities were anyway.
After four years of Trump, I’m not buying any excuses that the president is powerless.
How do you equate 80 million in donations so that or democracy is not eroded more to eroding that democracy itself? That’s some really silly logic if you ask me.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Neat? There’s far bigger crooks you could go after though.
Let’s work on getting rid of lobbying and electoral college. And not work on anything else until America’s government system is actually unfucked.
Anything less is the same horse and carrot show as it ever was.
Don’t settle.
And fucking make Congress about representing the people, instead of self enrichment. Including stock trades on inside info
deleted by creator
There is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that is close to succeeding.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Kind of a workaround but with the same result
deleted by creator
No doubt there will be a legal battle, but there are 6 states with pending votes, and those six would be enough to cross the 270 electoral vote threshold. The legal battle will hopefully bring it into greater public consciousness.
deleted by creator
It only needs approval from enough states to total 270 electoral votes among themselves to kick in, because those states will have pledged their electoral votes to the popular winner, even if the vote in any of those states favors another candidate. This is covered in the Wikipedia article linked above.
I want all those things, but in reality, if anything will improve it will be in small incremental steps.
No, it won’t. That is how change has been sold for the last 40 years, and people are not only being paid significantly less, housing is quickly becoming too scarce for everyone to obtain too.
If meaningful change happens, it will because people revolted.
Pressure must be applied from many sources for real change to occur. Ballot power, media power, people power, any lever we can find. We should not fault others for passionately pursuing the changes they can make. This is a war with many fronts.
Yet without a real, existential threat, nothing meaningful is going to change. Hell, we just saw Roe go up in smoke while Democrats had the presidency AND Congress. Their response to this massive loss of liberty was to fundraise.
Nothing is going to change this trajectory except the Marsha P. Johnson school of brick throwing.
To be fair; this ruling is a result of Trump packing the SCOTUS, not something Biden himself did.
Not saying this wasn’t a Democratic party failing; they let Trump win in the first place during all that kerfuffle about Hillary.
But I do think we have to consider the context.
To be fair: Democrats also did absolutely nothing to get their SCOTUS nominee confirmed when Obama was president, though since we saw them exploit the Roe leak to make a cool $80,000,000, we kinda know where their priorities were anyway.
After four years of Trump, I’m not buying any excuses that the president is powerless.
yeah no, you’re missing the point.
What Trump did was a gross abuse of power.
How do you equate 80 million in donations so that or democracy is not eroded more to eroding that democracy itself? That’s some really silly logic if you ask me.
This isn’t exactly “world news”