• @jordanlundM
    link
    -133 months ago

    Under the multi-state pact, if Oregon voted overwhelmingly for Harris, but Trump won the national popular vote, and our electoral college votes were delivered to Trump because of the popular vote, yeah, that would be overturning the will of Oregon voters and there would be riots.

    • @monkinto
      link
      English
      173 months ago

      So when one town votes for trump and Harris wins the state the votes of that town are “overturned” by the state then?

        • @monkinto
          link
          English
          53 months ago

          Really? I grew up in a red town in Massachusetts and I’ve literally never heard a single person talk about their vote like that ever, let alone suggest that the town should join another state.

          • @jordanlundM
            link
            -33 months ago

            Welcome to Oregon!

            Here’s the thing, the population centers, where people actually live, are super super blue.

            The rest of the state is Trump country.

            So every election, the people in Portland, Salem, Eugene, Corvallis, Bend and Newport call the shots. Everyone else feels disenfranchised because in those counties there are more square miles and cows than people.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      83 months ago

      Overturning what exactly? To record their votes in the EC for the losing candidate in a symbolic gesture? No one gives a shit about that, they’re still losing. You’ll have the state tallies, which actually count people, if you really want to say “most Oregonians disliked Trump”.

      • @jordanlundM
        link
        -1
        edit-2
        3 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          43 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.