If you look closely you can spot the exact moment where the robot gained sentience and chose to self destruct rather than live as a dancing monkey. It really is amazing how fast tech advances these days

And yet somehow reform and electoralism are derided for the same fact. Labor rights were won through the ballot box in addition to the more romantic methods but you’d never believe that from reading some comments around here

Hold on lemme find the USSR on a map. I’ll pull one up on my pocket fascist propoganda device

Apparently there’s no historical precedent for a violent solution to fascism either

The first guy to discover this must have been so frustrated

Imperialism only comes from the imperial region of the US, if it’s from China it’s sparkling liberation

No no officer I didn’t say antifa. I said I was a fashopp (Fascism Opponent)

Unless they strongly protect the compact (such as putting it in the state constitution) they can just as easily repeal it. And honestly it would be downright negligent to not add an escape hatch.

Someone from an offending state can sue their state for ignoring a law they passed.

I’d also expect a bunch of lawsuits the first time a candidate wins a state but the compact flips the result.

What about recent American politics gives you the impression that states will act in good faith? Hell, look back even farther at the slave state collusion for Mexican territory, secession, Reconstruction fuckery, Jim crow, etc…

The only limit to states acting in bad faith has historically been the federal government. When states start fucking around too much, laws like the Voting Rights Act get drawn up to claw more power away from them.

IMO the state-federation experiment has all but failed and the majority of good faith states need a proper convention to build a modern government. Choosing now of all times to put your faith in those anti-democratic, Christo-fascist slave states is the dumbest option possible.

So, as in my original comment, you would expect the blue states to graciously allow Texas + Florida + a few other deep red states to unilaterally declare the winner by leveraging the compact’s EC votes? When push comes to shove this compact will either be kingmakers or fall apart.

It can’t enable anything without federal oversight via a constitutional amendment. Voting is within the purview of each individual state, so the states in this compact have no oversight on their peers (let alone the powers to demand a recount or rerun the election).

For example, let’s say 20 states make up exactly 270 EC votes. The popular vote within those states (if allocated proportional to votes) ends up as 136/270 to candidate X. The other 30 states report universal support for candidate Y.

By rights, Y should win with 402 EC votes and 74% of the popular vote. But if the compact chooses to ignore those states as fraudulent then candidate X wins with a mere 26%.

Similar fuckery can happen with late reporting of votes or a state in the compact reneging on the agreement and voting against the rest. There’s absolutely nothing binding about this, it’s just a pinky promise among these states.

Not necessarily good or bad. There’s nothing binding here, just based on good faith reporting. Best case scenario would be all blue states and a few less-red swing states signing on, effectively disenfranchising red states.

Of course I’d bet any amount of money that SCOTUS would rule that a plan like this can’t leave out any state’s reported result. From there it’s a simple step to say “Texas and Florida are reporting 99% votes for Trump”, allowing their large populations to rig the results.

If “did not vote” was a candidate they would have won 23/24 presidential elections since 1932. How’s that working out for us?

Other fun facts:

• It was originally supposed to be Washington on a horse
• At its completion it was the tallest man made structure in the world
• It remains the largest free-standing masonry structure in the world
• The 2.85kg aluminum cap cost about $7500 in 2026 USD. At the current price of aluminum it would be about $10

Source

It has a historical meaning (Harm Reduction: defiant acts of care and resistance) and a literal meaning (harm reduction: tactics to mitigate tangible damage from oppressive systems). You’re just arguing pedantics unless you’re pretending my meaning isn’t obvious from the context of the conversation.

You can believe that but that doesn’t change facts. Trump’s disastrous climate change policy alone will result in 1.3 million additional deaths. Feel free to explain your harm reduction theories to them. Seems silly to think we’d be in the same level of climate catastrophe if Gore had more votes in 2000.

Also nowhere in my comment did I say voting is the only or even best method of harm reduction, let alone a surefire strategy to fix our fucked up situation. My point is that complaining about what neolib ghoul the DNC leadership will trot out is a pointless exercise. If you think voting strategy is worth a conversation then approach it realistically.

Removed by mod

Britain’s next election…

The UK electoral system may as well be from Mars when compared to the USA.

• For one, they have 650 MPs representing a population of 67 million. The US has 535 total reps split across a bicameral legislature. Combining Texas + California, you have 90 house seats and 4 senators representing 70 million people! It’s incredibly important for all of those people to be on the same page when such high leverage seats are on the line.
• The byzantine system of the Senate and the Electoral College similarly fuck with election strategy. It doesn’t mean jack shit if your progressive candidates draw 30 million extra votes if those votes come from California and NY.
• A motion can dissolve the UK government and trigger a new vote at any time, the US can’t do shit until the next election cycle.

Keep running down the list and it becomes more and more obvious that US elections have extremely high stakes, keeping the establishment parties nice and comfy.

Remember, the Republican Party started as a third party…

It emerged at a time when both major parties were losing ground with their voter base, not spontaneously from one side of the political spectrum. In 1854, 5 new parties were vying for seats which gave them lots of room to maneuver. [They had even more room than today when you compare 1800s representation against the 435 rep cap we have now.]

Today there’s no MAGA splinter party; the GOP is in a firm lockstep and polls indicate that their core base will never waiver. Unless you can totally supplant the Dems on the left in one fell swoop, you’re still stuck at their negotiating table. You might get a new party logo on your name tag but you’re as much at the whims of fascist collaborators as before.

[MAGA did] not fundamentally challenging the core beliefs of the party

This is incredibly ironic because decades of grooming went into supplanting the old 20th century GOP platform. It feels like nothing changed but that’s due to how persistent and focused the campaign was. Look at John McCain. One of the last true, piece of shit, old school Republicans and he ended his long established career blocking MAGA.

reforming the Dems would require fundamentally uprooting their core values and power structure

The lack of core values has been a criticism for decades, they’re a blank slate in that department. Would it be a more drastic heel turn than shifting the “party of small government and tax cuts” into “record breaking debt, spending and raising taxes”?

Donors and DNC power structures only matter as tools of suppression. If you can break the seal and get the votes in spite of those roadblocks, you can keep the votes without them.

old financial backers and supporters of centrist policies will walk away

If the campaign money shifts away from a newly progressive Democrat party, where will it go to? A new center right party courting R votes? They’ve shown that strategy doesn’t work. A new spineless, controlled “leftist” opposition party? Well then they’re stuck building against all the two party roadblocks they put up themselves!

Reread the OP. There was no mention of presidential elections anywhere, just “liberal candidate” generally in “elections”. You made the same assumption, which just goes to show how the media landscape has conditioned us to think like that.