“Project 2025”: Conservative master plan to end democracy?

[gothuevos]

My worry here is that someone intentionally messed with this process in order to manufacture a reason to eliminate vote by mail.

Not out of the question.

 

[esquared]

Trump Always Eventually Tells The Truth. TAETTT.

Every accusation is a confession.

 

[trenchfoot]

This seems to be a decent response to Project 2025...It's Project 2028:

 

[NWRMidnight]

This seems to be a decent response to Project 2025...It's Project 2028:

View attachment 132340

I wish getting rid of the Electoral College was doable, but it requires an amendment to the constitution, which the red states currently would never support. Outlawing Gerrymandering nationwide would have to be done first, all the maps correctly drawn, and then voting would have to turn red states blue, as well as take super majority in the house/senate, before we could get rid of the Electoral College. The Republican's would never go for it because they know they would never win again once the Electoral College is gone, which is why states have to be turned blue and dems have to have super majority in both houses.

 

[cytg111]

I wish getting rid of the Electoral College was doable, but it requires an amendment to the constitution, which the red states currently would never support. Outlawing Gerrymandering nationwide would have to be done first, all the maps correctly drawn, and then voting would have to turn red states blue, as well as take super majority in the house/senate, before we could get rid of the Electoral College. The Republican's would never go for it because they know they would never win again once the Electoral College is gone, which is why states have to be turned blue and dems have to have super majority in both houses.

I think you have had a 9 month class teaching you that the constitution is just a piece of paper. If states object - deploy the national guard. At first glance absolutely idiotic. Think about it. It is what needs to be done. A purge.

 

[mikeymikec]

View attachment 131457

Side note: "President DJT" amuses me. I'm imagining a black nineties pop rapper wearing an enormous clock on a necklace.

 

[zinfamous]

This seems to be a decent response to Project 2025...It's Project 2028:

View attachment 132340

The last one, I would confiscate their stadium "churches" and convert them into abortion factories.

 

[fskimospy]

I wish getting rid of the Electoral College was doable, but it requires an amendment to the constitution, which the red states currently would never support. Outlawing Gerrymandering nationwide would have to be done first, all the maps correctly drawn, and then voting would have to turn red states blue, as well as take super majority in the house/senate, before we could get rid of the Electoral College. The Republican's would never go for it because they know they would never win again once the Electoral College is gone, which is why states have to be turned blue and dems have to have super majority in both houses.

You don’t need an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the EC for all intents and purposes. You just need states with 51% of the electoral votes to pass laws to award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote.

 

[K1052]

You don’t need an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the EC for all intents and purposes. You just need states with 51% of the electoral votes to pass laws to award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote.

Another thing that requires packing SCOTUS because this would certainly generate a John Roberts "you can't do that".

 

[NWRMidnight]

I think you have had a 9 month class teaching you that the constitution is just a piece of paper. If states object - deploy the national guard. At first glance absolutely idiotic. Think about it. It is what needs to be done. A purge.

It seems you didn't grasp what I responded too... Maybe step back and read the "project 2028", and think about who would be behind it. It sure as hell wouldn't be the fascists in charge now shitting on the constitution.

 

[NWRMidnight]

You don’t need an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the EC for all intents and purposes. You just need states with 51% of the electoral votes to pass laws to award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote.

pretty sure such laws would most likely be ruled unconstitutional, both at the federal level and the state level. There is already the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, that has been in the works and is subject of legalallity debates, and has been deteremined it would face legal challanges if it ever achieved enough states to join it. Currently there are 17 states, representing 209 electoral votes.. they need 270 to even make it work.

 

[fskimospy]

Another thing that requires packing SCOTUS because this would certainly generate a John Roberts "you can't do that".

Everything, literally everything the Democrats want to do requires packing SCOTUS first or else they will quickly find out that everything in their agenda is a Major Question.

 

[fskimospy]

That would be ruled unconstitutional, as it would may not represent how that state voted.

Why would that be unconstitutional? States don't even have to hold an election for president if they don't want to.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Why would that be unconstitutional? States don't even have to hold an election for president if they don't want to.

read my edit:
Yes I used AI because I don't have time to go find all the info:

Legal arguments and challenges
The NPVIC's constitutionality remains a subject of considerable legal debate and will likely face court challenges if the compact is enacted. Key arguments include:

• Compact Clause: Opponents argue the NPVIC violates the Constitution's Compact Clause, which prohibits states from entering into agreements or compacts without the consent of Congress. Proponents contend congressional approval is not needed because the compact does not increase the states' political power at the expense of non-compacting states.
• Equal Protection: Some critics argue the compact violates the Equal Protection Clause by effectively negating the votes of citizens within compacting states if their state's popular vote winner differs from the national one. Proponents counter that all votes are counted equally in the nationwide tally, and that state-level results become irrelevant under this system.
• Intent of the Framers: Opponents argue the NPVIC subverts the original intent of the Electoral College, which was to ensure that all states, including less-populous ones, are represented in presidential elections. Proponents point to the Constitution's silence on the specific method of appointing electors, arguing that the founders gave states broad discretion to decide.

Even if states didn't hold elections for President, it would be unconsitutional to base electoral college votes off of national popular vote because it would take away individual states representation under the purpose of the electoral college. That is why it would require a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral collage.

 

[Indus]

read my edit:
Yes I used AI because I don't have time to go find all the info:

Legal arguments and challenges
The NPVIC's constitutionality remains a subject of considerable legal debate and will likely face court challenges if the compact is enacted. Key arguments include:

• Compact Clause: Opponents argue the NPVIC violates the Constitution's Compact Clause, which prohibits states from entering into agreements or compacts without the consent of Congress. Proponents contend congressional approval is not needed because the compact does not increase the states' political power at the expense of non-compacting states.
• Equal Protection: Some critics argue the compact violates the Equal Protection Clause by effectively negating the votes of citizens within compacting states if their state's popular vote winner differs from the national one. Proponents counter that all votes are counted equally in the nationwide tally, and that state-level results become irrelevant under this system.
• Intent of the Framers: Opponents argue the NPVIC subverts the original intent of the Electoral College, which was to ensure that all states, including less-populous ones, are represented in presidential elections. Proponents point to the Constitution's silence on the specific method of appointing electors, arguing that the founders gave states broad discretion to decide.

I don't mind you using AI but I hope it was not Grok.

If so let us know it's Garbage AI!

 

[fskimospy]

read my edit:
Yes I used AI because I don't have time to go find all the info:

Legal arguments and challenges
The NPVIC's constitutionality remains a subject of considerable legal debate and will likely face court challenges if the compact is enacted. Key arguments include:

• Compact Clause: Opponents argue the NPVIC violates the Constitution's Compact Clause, which prohibits states from entering into agreements or compacts without the consent of Congress. Proponents contend congressional approval is not needed because the compact does not increase the states' political power at the expense of non-compacting states.
• Equal Protection: Some critics argue the compact violates the Equal Protection Clause by effectively negating the votes of citizens within compacting states if their state's popular vote winner differs from the national one. Proponents counter that all votes are counted equally in the nationwide tally, and that state-level results become irrelevant under this system.
• Intent of the Framers: Opponents argue the NPVIC subverts the original intent of the Electoral College, which was to ensure that all states, including less-populous ones, are represented in presidential elections. Proponents point to the Constitution's silence on the specific method of appointing electors, arguing that the founders gave states broad discretion to decide.

Yes, there are arguments people could make against it but that's true for anything. The equal protection argument is particularly silly as this would make people's votes MORE equally counted, not less. As for what the framers thought, I could not possibly care less.

It's very simple - the Constitution explicitly and unambiguously gives states the power to simply award their electors to whoever the legislature chooses. They literally don't even have to hold an election.

 

[Indus]

Everything, literally everything the Democrats want to do requires A REVOLUTION first that ousts all sitting judges/ congress/ states governors or else they will quickly find out that everything in their agenda is a Major Question.

FTFY

 

[K1052]

It's very simple - the Constitution explicitly and unambiguously gives states the power to simply award their electors to whoever the legislature chooses. They literally don't even have to hold an election.

They can even hold an election and nullify the results if they don't like them. What most Americans understand as how all this works is really just a collection of norms and traditions which are not all that old really. Due to a hyper partisan Supreme Court they all currently break in only one direction of course.

 

[fskimospy]

They can even hold an election and nullify the results if they don't like them. What most Americans understand as how all this works is really just a collection of norms and traditions which are not all that old really. Due to a hyper partisan Supreme Court they all currently break in only one direction of course.

Yup. The only vote for president that is actually required is that by the electors - there's no need to even hold a normal election for president. And of course the electors are selected in whatever way a state wants.

That being said, I agree and fully expect SCOTUS would Calvinball their way to ruling against it. I mean after all they said the president can kill anyone he wants, SCOTUS and Congress included and it's not a crime, or at least not a crime he can be prosecuted for.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Yes, there are arguments people could make against it but that's true for anything. The equal protection argument is particularly silly as this would make people's votes MORE equally counted, not less. As for what the framers thought, I could not possibly care less.

It's very simple - the Constitution explicitly and unambiguously gives states the power to simply award their electors to whoever the legislature chooses. They literally don't even have to hold an election.

Until it happens, and the legal battles play out, and the rulings are handed down, we really don't know. You have made simular claims the unambiguously of the constitution, only to be proven wrong. just as I have. But it really doesn't matter, as it would be the same problem with amending the constitution and ratifying it to remove the Electoral collage.. It would require red states to turn blue, but at the state level, which could prove just as diffcult, as getting super majority at the federal level. Which is why the NPVIC only has 17 states (all blue). Basically you are arguing symantics because its the same problem no matter which way you look at it.

 

[fskimospy]

Until it happens, and the legal battles play out, and the rulings are handed down, we really don't know. You have made simular claims the unambiguously of the constitution, only to be proven wrong. just as I have. But it really doesn't matter, as it would be the same problem with amending the constitution and ratifying it to remove the Electoral collage.. It would require red states to turn blue, which is why the NPVIC only has 17 states (all blue). Basically you are arguing symantics because its the same problem no matter which way you look at it.

As I already mentioned I fully expect SCOTUS to Calvinball their way to whatever decision suits their partisan interests the best but it doesn't change the plain language. I mean after all the idea that the president can kill Congress and it's not possible to prosecute him for that is facially absurd but here we are.

But two things:
1) It is most certainly not the same problem as amending the Constitution as it would require far fewer states.

2) When you said it was unconstitutional because the state might award electors in a way different than their population voted for is pretty clearly not true considering a state does not even need to hold an election for president.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Should not this ambitious list primarily address restoration of our government first of all?

Should there not be some law passed -- call it the "custodial responsibility Act" -- requiring the executive branch to follow all laws and common-sense practice to make legislation and programs work to maximum extent, and for elimination of agencies to be the sole responsibility of Congress?

With or without that, we need to restore the civil service and the agencies damaged by the Trump administration. Then we can worry about all of these more ambitious projects like "eliminate gerrymandering" and "massive tax reform" favoring everyone but the the rich and super-rich.

Fixing things after Trump would seem as difficult as cleaning up after the Palisades fire. But I want my damn country back. All of it.

 

[NWRMidnight]

As I already mentioned I fully expect SCOTUS to Calvinball their way to whatever decision suits their partisan interests the best but it doesn't change the plain language. I mean after all the idea that the president can kill Congress and it's not possible to prosecute him for that is facially absurd but here we are.

But two things:
1) It is most certainly not the same problem as amending the Constitution as it would require far fewer states.

2) When you said it was unconstitutional because the state might award electors in a way different than their population voted for is pretty clearly not true considering a state does not even need to hold an election for president.

I edited my post you responded to, but to your two points:

1) It most certainly is the same problem. You are being short sighted. First, requring fewer states is not necessarily true, it all depends on the combination of states. You can achieve 270 electorial votes with as little as 12 states.. it can also take as many as 51 states. Two, it would be just as difficult, because instead of relying on turning both houes at the federal level, it would require turning both houses at the state level in each state. You know damn well that republican's would not vote for such laws, same reason they won't agree to amend the constitution.

2). I said state legislatures making such laws that award their electoral collage votes go to the national popular vote, would MOST LIKELY be ruled unconstitutional. Which is what you said they could do, hense my response about states creating such laws. Why would it most likely be considered unconstituional?: 1) Such a law would violate the very intent the electoral collage was put in the constituion in the first place by the founding fathers. If the intend was for the national popular vote to dictate the outcome, the electoral college would have never been put in the constituion. The electoral collage was actually a comprimise to prevent mob rule, to ensure smaller states from being overshadowed by larger states, and due to slavery so southern states would have more electoral power because of larger non voter population (not relevant today). State laws requiring that the electoral votes go to the national popular vote, would circumvent the very purpose of the electoral college. Generally, when states make laws that circumvent parts of the constitution, or the intent of the articles, it is ruled unconsitutional. (it's all about interpretation). That's just one possible legal challenges that could play out among many. There are many possible avenues of legal challanges, which is what the NPVIC will face in court if they ever get enough states. I believe the Electoral college needs to be abolished, but due to all the possible legal challenges and interpretations, the only way it will happen is thru a constituional amendment, and not thru state laws that try to circumvent it. IT would most likely turn into another endless cycle of lawsuits just like we have with guns (second amendment), and the interpretations that have warped it's true purpose/intent/meaning into something much different.

 

[fskimospy]

I edited my post you responded to, but to your two points:

1) It most certainly is the same problem. You are being short sighted. First, requring fewer states is not necessarily true, it all depends on the combination of states. You can achieve 270 electorial votes with as little as 12 states.. it can also take as many as 51 states. Two, it would be just as difficult, because instead of relying on turning both houes at the federal level, it would require turning both houses at the state level in each state. You know damn well that republican's would not vote for such laws, same reason they won't agree to amend the constitution.

2). I said state legislatures making such laws that award their electoral collage votes go to the national popular vote, would MOST LIKELY be ruled unconstitutional. Which is what you said they could do, hense my response about states creating such laws. Why would it most likely be considered unconstituional?: 1) Such a law would violate the very intent the electoral collage was put in the constituion in the first place by the founding fathers. If the intend was for the national popular vote to dictate the outcome, the electoral college would have never been put in the constituion. The electoral collage was actually a comprimise to prevent mob rule, to ensure smaller states from being overshadowed by larger states, and due to slavery so southern states would have more electoral power because of larger non voter population (not relevant today). State laws requiring that the electoral votes go to the national popular vote, would circumvent the very purpose of the electoral college. Generally, when states make laws that circumvent parts of the constitution, or the intent of the articles, it is ruled unconsitutional. (it's all about interpretation). That's just one possible legal challenges that could play out among many. There are many possible avenues of legal challanges, which is what the NPVIC will face in court if they ever get enough states. I believe the Electoral college needs to be abolished, but due to all the possible legal challenges and interpretations, the only way it will happen is thru a constituional amendment, and not thru state laws that try to circumvent it. IT would most likely turn into another endless cycle of lawsuits just like we have with guns (second amendment), and the interpretations that have warped it's true purpose/intent/meaning into something much different.

Nope. Wrong on both points.

1) first, regardless of how many it could take in theory we have a decent idea of how many it would take in practice as many of the largest states are democratic leaning. Second, it would be overall much easier simply because it would require fewer than two thirds of states. As far as flipping their legislatures you only need to flip each state’s once as once it is enacted it’s there until repeal.

2) what the founders wanted the electoral college to do is irrelevant. The one and only question is if this is within the powers of the states to do. The only line in the constitution that relates to this says the electors will be awarded in the manner in the manner state legislatures direct. That’s it. End of story. They could also award electors based on a farting competition if they chose despite this presumably not being what the founders envisioned.

In this case the electors would be awarded in the manner the legislatures direct, keeping with the literal exact method stated in the constitution.

I think it should be abolished too but it’s very obviously unnecessary to abolish it in order to accomplish the same goal. Edit: as with everything this requires reforming the court as SCOTUS Calvinball will derail it but that’s not a legal argument, it’s a political one. (And one that is necessary for democrats to pass almost any laws again)

 

[nakedfrog]

Nope. Wrong on both points.

1) first, regardless of how many it could take in theory we have a decent idea of how many it would take in practice as many of the largest states are democratic leaning. Second, it would be overall much easier simply because it would require fewer than two thirds of states. As far as flipping their legislatures you only need to flip each state’s once as once it is enacted it’s there until repeal.

2) what the founders wanted the electoral college to do is irrelevant. The one and only question is if this is within the powers of the states to do. The only line in the constitution that relates to this says the electors will be awarded in the manner in the manner state legislatures direct. That’s it. End of story. They could also award electors based on a farting competition if they chose despite this presumably not being what the founders envisioned.

In this case the electors would be awarded in the manner the legislatures direct, keeping with the literal exact method stated in the constitution.

I think it should be abolished too but it’s very obviously unnecessary to abolish it in order to accomplish the same goal. Edit: as with everything this requires reforming the court as SCOTUS Calvinball will derail it but that’s not a legal argument, it’s a political one. (And one that is necessary for democrats to pass almost any laws again)

Going with a farting competition would probably win over a lot of MAGA voters.