I know you like to joke about California's notoriously slow vote counting, but it's not really that funny that it is your vote that you are being defrauded of during that month-long adjust-a-palooza.
I know you like to joke about California's notoriously slow vote counting, but it's not really that funny that it is your vote that you are being defrauded of during that month-long adjust-a-palooza.
There's plenty on the ballot besides the presidency.
And the argument that "oh, the victim would have lost anyway" is neither a legal nor moral defense against a fraud indictment.
The electorally 'irrelevant' results of the popular vote are always bandied about as a moral cudgel, and can eventually have real world consequences, such as for whether the Electoral College is abolished.
Yes, it would. But a Constitutional amendment requires ratification by, currently, 38 states, so Wyoming's and the Dakotas' agreement isn't strictly necessary. I suspect, however, that considerably more than 12 states would be disadvantaged relative to the current situation by any such amendment.
I know you like to joke about California's notoriously slow vote counting, but it's not really that funny that it is your vote that you are being defrauded of during that month-long adjust-a-palooza.
as regards the Presidential vote it makes no difference when Harris gets CA's electoral vote, so you're not being defrauded of anything.
Now, when the courts ignore voting results on Propositions, THAT is fraud.
There's plenty on the ballot besides the presidency.
And the argument that "oh, the victim would have lost anyway" is neither a legal nor moral defense against a fraud indictment.
The electorally 'irrelevant' results of the popular vote are always bandied about as a moral cudgel, and can eventually have real world consequences, such as for whether the Electoral College is abolished.
Red votes matter. Even in California.
No, they don't matter. Not for who gets to be president.
And the Electoral College being abolished is not happening. As something to worry about that's in the same range as an asteroid strike.
I believe scrapping the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment. Why would Wyoming and the Dakotas agree to such a thing?
Yes, it would. But a Constitutional amendment requires ratification by, currently, 38 states, so Wyoming's and the Dakotas' agreement isn't strictly necessary. I suspect, however, that considerably more than 12 states would be disadvantaged relative to the current situation by any such amendment.