this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
48 points (77.9% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4559 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

As this recently updated article discusses, while extremely unlikely, given the way this timeline is going it's possible the electoral college ends in a tie. Nate Silver projects this as a .3% possibility.

Things to think about:

  1. Only about half of the states require their electors to vote for the person that won their state. Who are the electors? Generally no one you know.

  2. If there's a tie, the House elects a president and the Senate elects a VP. Sub-consideration: it is the composition of the House and Senate after the November election that makes those determinations.

  3. This would all technically be decided on January 6th. And you remember how that went last time.

Regardless, it's highly unlikely this will happen. Still, this would be utter and complete madness. There is literally a non-zero chance we have a Trump/Harris administration. 🤣

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Takes 50 years and multiple appointments.

Right now the court is 6-3. The two oldest judges are on the 6 side, Thomas and Alito.

If we're super lucky, Harris will win in 2024 and get to replace 1 or both of them before 2028.

I feel safe in saying, neither one will voluntarily step down knowing a Democrat will replace them, so it's VITAL to get Harris in in BOTH '24 AND '28.

Thomas was born in '48, Alito in '50. So in '28 we're looking at an 80 year old and 78 year old. 84 and 82 in 2032. 88 and 86 in 2036.

These ages are not unheard of. Ginsburg was 87 when she died.

So we might not have a chance to reverse the 6-3 court until 2036/37/38?

All it will take is ONE Republican President between now and then to go "You know what, why don't you step down so I can nominate somebody younger and lock in the conservative majority for another 50 years..."

Like Trump did with Justice Kennedy and Kavanaugh.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/04/trump-family-anthony-kennedy-brett-kavanaugh-dark-towers

Even if they die and Harris or another Democrat replaces them, that flips the court from 6-3 (R) to 4-5 (D) and the next two oldest judges are Sotomayor (born 1954), appointed by Obama, and Roberts (born 1955), who has been more moderate on most issues than the other conservative judges.

So to undo the current makeup of the court, the Democrats have to keep the Presidency starting in 2024 and running through at least 2040. 16 years.

FDR/Truman was 1933 to 1953 so there is precedent, but that was before the 2 term limit. Since then, no single party has been able to hold for more than 12 years, Reagan, Reagan, Bush.

Eisenhower (R) - 8 Years
Kennedy/Johnson (D) - 8 Years
Nixon/Ford (R) - 8 Years
Carter (D) - 4 Years
Reagan/Bush (R) - 12 Years
Clinton (D) - 8 Years
Bush II (R) - 8 Years
Obama (D) - 8 Years
Trump (R) - 4 Years
Biden (D) - 4 Years

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Doing it through any method other than an amendment would just enter into a war of increased sizes. "Oh? You increased the size to 13? We're doing 17, bitches!"

Eventually, we're all judges.

[–] Blade9732@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If we can't change the court, why not force them into an ideological corner? Challenge the law that artificially limits the size of the house on Constitutional grounds. By going originalist thinking, the house should have 1 rep per lowest population state. This would allow higher population states to massively increase the number of representatives. The electoral collage number is Constitutionally based on the number of senators (2) per state, plus the number of representatives. This allows all votes to be equal.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

The OG plan was 1 Congressman per 30,000 population, which right now would mean 11,000 congressmen. 😳 You think 435 is dysfunctional...

[–] superkret 2 points 2 months ago

There's ways to... speed things up a bit.