Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Trump Might Be In Serious Trouble This Time" video.

@jamesparson Actually, it's 2/3 of each House of Congress and 3/4 of states, but I fully favor the Compact, because it is constitutional and effectively switches to a national popular vote without needing to clear such a high hurdle, especially given that red states will never go along (that being said, a part of did wish that Kerry won the election despite losing the popular vote so Republicans would suddenly have a reason to care about getting rid of it, too).
3
 @joca6282 France is literally The Fifth Republic of France, and Germany is the German Federal Republic. Neither are dictatorships.
3
 @tomparlo9510 Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Presidential election. That is legislative districts.
2
@TheDesertRat31 Well, then, maybe Republicans need to try to win over people. It's like some conversation I had with someone whining about the two-party system and insisting that Ranked Choice Voting doesn't really help them. Well, if the spoiler effect is gone and you're still stuck in single digits, that's on you.
2
@tomparlo9510 Any time. It does seem like some use it as a general term for election chicanery, but it is a very specific type.
2
@Vscustomprinting Both of whom, France and Germany? I was making a general point to counter the nonsense that a republic means that something is not a democracy.
2
@billyconnelly3568 Can't get rid of the Senate. The Constitution specifies that changing the Senate representation rules would require ratification by every state. As far as the Electoral College goes, because every time it has screwed over Democrats and all but the first favored Republicans, it won't get the votes for outright repeal, but there is a way to effectively neuter it. There is a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The way it works is, if enough member states join to equal the majority of the Electoral College, member states will award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the state popular vote. Article II gives states a lot of leeway in how they decide to award the winner (in theory, they could all decide to just award their votes based on any other standard as long as they do so ahead of the election), and at this time, states totaling 215 electoral votes have joined, so we're getting close. While it's not perfect (you can't deal with the spoiler effect), it will be a massive improvement over the election being irrelevant in over 49 states.
1
@joca6282 You're the one who literally said that only dictatorships call themselves republics, not me. Democracy and republic are two completely different categories. The "republic not a democracy" crowd are a bunch of idiots who gave up on democracy because they know they can't win.
1
@benjamintrevino325 Such a move would be unilateral disarmament, so nobody would do it, because in each state, you're basically only fighting for one electoral vote at that point. The far better option is to convince states to give it to the winner of the national popular vote, and states totaling 215 electoral votes, or 79% of the needed total, have already agreed to do so as soon as the magic number is reached.
1
@grumpyoldman6503 Indeed, gerrymandering laws must be done at the federal level. If only blue states agree to it, that is basically unilateral disarmament and giving the House to the Republican Party. My other hope is that, rather than getting rid of the filibuster completely, that we bring back the talking filibuster, because turning it into a supermajority requirement in the Senate with no effort involved has clearly broken the system. If someone feels strongly enough about it to make the case to the American people that they are willing to talk and stay on the floor (including changing cloture to a 3/5 vote rather than 3/5 of all Senators) will make it much more rare like it used to be (maybe once every other year) so things can get done.
1
@odinson6348 Yes, but this has nothing to do with a Presidential election or electing US Senators.
1
@odinson6348 Your above comment is about faithless electors. That has nothing to do with gerrymandering. If anything, that is a function of the parties not doing a better job of vetting their people.
1