this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
63 points (93.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35884 readers
1188 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s
ja2
_MoveSwiftly
Rooki
Thekingoflorda
automodbeta
63
In the US, what is stopping people from bribing members of the electoral college? (self.nostupidquestions)
submitted 1 week ago by Yggnar to c/nostupidquestions
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Let's say you're a mega wealthy billionaire who has suddenly realized that if he cozies up close to a presidential candidate, he could have more power and wealth than ever before. What's stopping you from figuring out who the electorates are and offering them whatever they want if they vote for your guy? What's stopping them from taking the deal?

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhork 49 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Two reasons:

First, in many states the electors are bound by law to support the candidate that wins the popular vote in their state. The penalties may vary, but the intent is clear: to make sure people realize it is against the law in that state.

But the second reason is that each campaign actually picks their own electors for each state ahead of time. So it's not like the state has one set that will vote either way, and who can be persuaded. All of the states that votes for Harris are sending electors their campaign hand-picked, and likewise for Trump. So each side is sending their own very partisan people, whose political success is tied to their party. Violating that will ruin their political career in that party.

[–] Lost_My_Mind 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is all a very convoluted system. What we should do is make it much more simple.

Take Harris, and trump. Put them in a big venue, like a football stadium, and then fill the ground level with axes and swords, and shields, and maces (the swinging spikey ball kind).

And just let them go at it until we have a victor.

Then, that victor has to solve a series of puzzles. If they can, they win.

I would also accept a revival of the 1990s version of the tv show American Gladiators. Mostly because I love that show.

[–] Adulated_Aspersion 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You want President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho?

[–] TheDoozer 7 points 1 week ago

A president who wants what is best for his people, seeks out the smartest man on the planet, and puts him in charge of the most challenging problem facing the country?

Yes. I want president Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho as president.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

First, in many states the electors are bound by law to support the candidate that wins the popular vote in their state. The penalties may vary, but the intent is clear: to make sure people realize it is against the law in that state

Honestly this is so stupid if I understand their reasoning for existing in the first place. Unless I'm misunderstanding they were supposed to exist literally for this exact election, where the people elected an absolute atrocity of a person and "our betters" would recognize that and vote against him.

We should just do away with it if we have no interest in utilizing them for their actual purposes.

[–] False 23 points 1 week ago

Sending people to represent how a state voted makes more sense in the context of the 18 century without phones.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yes, electoral college should be abolished. It's probably not gonna happen though, so this is a temporary band-aid solution that many states have implemented.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We can kinda get rid of it via National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

First democrats need a majority in both houses in congress, as well as packing the court with more liberal judges.

Then have enough states with the required electoral vote threshold join the interstate compact.

Then have congress approve of it.

Then get the supreme court (now with liberal majority) uphold the interstate compact and rule that subsequent congressional sessions cannot revoke it. (Its currently implied that congressional approval of interstate compacts cannot be revoked, but has never been court tested)

Voila, you get popular vote. For as long as states dont start leaving the interstate compact. But at least you dont need 3/4th of state legislatures.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

None of the things you mentioned sounds even remotely plausible though. 🥲

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Democrats getting both houses of congress is not implausable, assuming we still have elections in the future.

Packing the supreme court isnt hard, just need the democrats to find their spine. And they could just rebrand it as "Balancing The Court" for PR purposes.

Now finding the states that add up to 270 electoral votes to join the i reinstate conpact, that is the biggest hurdle, but the downballot effect should win enough state legislatures if democrats win congress. Right now we're 77% of the way there. One reason I speculate why they remaing swing states havent joined is becauss they want to wait until theres a friendly congress and supreme court before trying, because there will be legal challenges to it. If congress and supreme court are in control, then I could see swing states quickly joining the interstate compact in rapid succession.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

That packing the court bit is a great idea so long as you can make sure your guy wins forever and nobody bad will ever get in and pack the court again in their favor. It's basically MAD, nobody wants to be the person to open that Pandora's Box.

[–] Alexstarfire 1 points 1 week ago

Trump would have won anyway.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

The popular vote be damned

[–] db2 27 points 1 week ago

Other than all of 1 breaking the law 2 getting caught and 3 there being at least one person with an ounce of integrity to uphold said law.

So basically nothing anymore.

[–] givesomefucks 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Tradition...

It's another one of those things where we're not going to codify it because Republicans want it as a pocket ace, and moderates control party policy and they just have a phobia of admitting anything actually needs fixed, let alone fixing it.

But the electors in a lot of states can do what they want

32 states + DC are legally required to vote for the party that nominated them as electors tho.

So some are "locked in", the rest can pretty much do what they want. I know some states are on an "interstate compact" where once they get enough states it triggers them having to vote for the national popular vote winner.

But I'm not sure what the overlap is with the ones who already have the requirement to vote for the party that appointed them or how that will shake out.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter 6 points 1 week ago

They are already members of the 'winning' party in their state, aren't they?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

If you attempted this you would find the majority of electors report it and you get arrested. Electors are the big party supporters and so most are not going to take a bribe. Well maybe you could get the Harris electors (who know they will lose anyway) to support a moderate Republican, but you won't get any republicans to switch to this new candidate. The never Trump republicans who would thus be willing to switch their vote are not electors.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Uh that's what lobbying is basically, but this election showed us that you just need to control the media, both social and otherwise