Nate said today that a coin actually has a 50.5% chance of heads, so this is technically closer than a coin flip!

I can’t really see how this is different from anything except that it is an online movement. There have always been slogans, campaigns, and movements to get people motivated to vote. This particular movement is helpful to motivate people who might feel that their vote isn’t significant, as it helps them to think of it in concrete terms as a chess move against their MAGA loved one. I don’t see why that is so stupid. It seems like hating it is more of a knee-jerk reaction against people who use TikTok. While I dislike TikTok myself, this seems like one of the weakest examples of why it’s bad.

Yes, they want weeks of no official result being declared, during which they say Trump definitely won, so that when the final result comes in, if it’s Harris, they can say Democrats are trying to overturn the election

How long was Prince “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince”?

For about seven years, and then he went back to calling himself Prince again.

Yeah, I’m not as addicted to Lemmy as I was with Reddit, because there aren’t as many comments and niche communities and an algorithm messing with me, but like I check Lemmy throughout each day and if I’m honest there’s not much purpose aside from getting that hit.

Not voting in enough Democrats into Congress to do anything and saying the Democrats didn’t actually want to do anything

You just fundamentally do not understand statistics and it’s tiresome

And here I thought it was not having the needed amount of votes that caused her to lose.

I’m sick of people blaming Hillary‘s campaign for all the horrible shit that ensued afterwards. Candidates campaign because it is in their best interest to do so, but at the end of the day, this is our government. It’s our job as citizens to educate ourselves on the candidates, the voting system, and the stakes of the election. We should be figuring out who best to vote for, whether they are good at campaigning or not.

So, while Hillary might have won with a better campaign, the blame for Trump getting into power firmly rests with the voting public. We knew what kind of person Trump was before he was elected, and we knew there was a vacant Supreme Court seat.

Don’t blame it on the fact that people weren’t manipulated well enough by a giant ad campaign.

It would also probably be a constant battle to keep it in effect anyway, because every state that has entered the compact can always leave. As long as you can shut off the compact by removing one or two states from it, it will be an unstable mess.

I don’t know what country you are from or how your voting system works. But I will guess that your country has many parties and after the election, a governing coalition is formed.

In the US voting system, similar parties get punished by stealing votes from each other. So, in effect, we have to form our coalitions before the election and choose the single candidate that will stand for all of us. So, you can think of the Democratic Party as the Democratic Coalition, made up of some truly left-wing factions, as well as some not very left-wing or even centrist factions, and so our candidate will be much more watered down than what you’d see in a different system.

Also might cause Trump to publicly obsess over it which certainly doesn’t help him in any way

Are you aware of what is minimally required in order to pull off this kind of change? There is no outcome to this election that will result in the Democrats having even the faintest possibility of doing this.

This is probably a fool’s errand, because it’s all or nothing, making it inherently unstable. If we ever get within striking distance of having enough states to cross the threshold, the law will be fought tooth and nail to prevent passage, and this battle would continue in perpetuity in every remotely purple state that has the NPVIC law in place, trying to get enough overturned to stop it.

Maybe it accomplishes something useful simply by bringing the conversation about reform to the forefront? But as an actual solution I’m completely skeptical, as much as I like the idea.

When they announced the ads it was just the incentive I needed to quit Prime totally. I don’t miss it. I already was wary of buying from Amazon due to the sketchy sellers and fake products, so I’m glad buying my stuff elsewhere except when I can’t find something somewhere else, which has been rare.

I’m not sure what you mean. Of course it’s never happened because we’ve never done it that way.

If you’re saying that if you go back and calculate previous elections, then it never would have made a difference, that doesn’t mean it could not happen. Growing up I learned that there was only one time in history that the popular vote didn’t match the EC, but now it’s become a constant threat. If it becomes a viable path then eventually it is bound to be exploited.

What you are talking about simply isn’t functionally equivalent to just straight up popular vote, for the reason I described. Votes are not worth the same amount in different places.

This only solves it if you also make the number of delegates for each state be proportional to its population size. California has 68 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times the number of electoral votes.

The thing is that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is nothing until it’s all the way there. Having 95% of the necessary electoral votes has the same effect as 0. So there’s no reason for opponents to even care about it until it is within striking distance of the threshold. It seems to me that if we ever reach a point where it comes down to just a state or two, that legislation will be fought tooth and nail, not just in those last states, but there will be fights and legal challenges in states that have already entered the compact to reverse it too. And even if we manage to win the fight and it gets activated, we will still have to keep fighting in perpetuity because almost any state pulling out would undo the whole thing.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t even try, maybe some good comes of it regardless. It just doesn’t seem like a solution as much as a statement.

Believe it or not some people may not have been investing significant amounts of time into learning about Elon Musk’s personality in 2014

This is the ignorant “I don’t understand statistics” take. If Nate Silver had given Clinton a 100% chance to win, then maybe you’d have some sort of point. But, in fact, the 538 projection gave Trump a much higher chance than most of the major election models, to the point that I remember Nate having to defend himself against angry people on Twitter over and over. He wrote an article ahead of the election pointing out that if an outcome has a 30% chance of happening, not only is it possible, but in fact you expect it to happen 3 in 10 times. I was very nervous on Election Day 2016 specifically because I had been closely following 538 projections.

It makes logical sense for a person to draw this conclusion, but MTG is famously an idiot, so that’s what’s baffling. What convinced her to change her tune?