• ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Unless she gets the presidency, the Democrats roll up supermajorities in the House and Senate, and a majority of states put in Democratic governors, this isn’t happening. IE: it isn’t happening.

    • There are in fact a couple of workarounds for this.

      If Harris wins and Dems get enough majority control of both houses (enough to get around likely no votes from maverick Dems like Joe Manchin), then the Senate majority leader (Schumer) can lower the bar for a filibuster to a bare majority.

      Then pass a new law appointing nine new Supreme Court justices. Harris nominates them and the Senate approves them.

      Then pass a new federal law that requires the electoral vote of states to follow the nationwide popular vote, as per the Compact. You get the same effect without needing the States to sign on, and with the court packed the law hopefully will be able to withstand the challenges.

      Plan B - if we really do need a constitutional amendment to fix this and abolish the Electoral College outright - then drop the filibuster as above, but then follow this plan https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review

      Basically pass a law that allows each neighborhood of DC to be admitted in as a new state - so 127 in all - and with the new supermajority of states (and corresponding supermajorities in both Houses), pass whatever constitutional amendments are required.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        IEE: It isn’t happening.

        It would also require the Democrat will to move that mountain as above, which I don’t think exists even if there were supermajorities and governors to do it. They benefit almost as much from the 2-party system and electoral college as the Republicans.

        • even if there were supermajorities and governors to do it.

          Just pointing out again that this wouldn’t strictly be necessary (at least in the first phases).

          They benefit almost as much from … electoral college as the Republicans.

          Not really seeing how this would be. Don’t Dems have a disadvantage here?

          It would also require the Democrat will to move that mountain as above, which I don’t think exists

          Fair point. I wish I could disagree.

          They benefit almost as much from the 2-party system … as the Republicans.

          Right now I’m pro-Dem especially because I don’t like the other option but … it would be so nice to realistically have other options.

    • nieminen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Almost the whole house is up for reelection this November as well, so maybe at least that part can be handled.

        • nieminen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, but I feel as though people are more active this election, so I think there’s a larger chance of at least getting rid of the super majority in the house.