Skip to content

Goodbye to the Electoral College?

Monday, November 9, 2026

Among the 300 or so political emails I get on a daily basis are some from a group wanting to Abolish the Electoral College!. I’ve always ignored them because I didn’t see any way, no matter how much money I might contribute, that it could be done given the then current state of the country. There is no way, for instance, that a sufficient number of states would pass a constitutional amendment providing for the election of the president by popular vote,since it would dilute the influence of (mostly red) states with low populations. I should add here that as I never bothered to read the emails from the group I’ve mentioned and only seen the subject lines, it’s quite possible that what they were advocating, though impossible until last Tuesday, is now somewhat possible.

It is a fact that the manner in which presidential electors are chosen is entirely up to the individual states. State legislatures can decide how to choose them, unless constrained by a provision of the state constitution. After all, our sainted Founding Fathers provided that the electors would be chosen as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Given the number of state legislatures that were flipped this year, it is now quite possible for the National Popular Vote Compact to be adopted by a sufficient number of states to become operative. The compact basically provides that if a sufficient number of states, with total electoral votes exceeding a majority, adopt the compact, the states adopting the compact will cast their electoral votes for the candidate who got the most popular votes, regardless of whether that candidate won the popular vote in that state. The current state of the compact is set forth at the Wikipedia link above.

There’s a good discussion of the possibility of passage here at Mother Jones, well worth reading. Basically, given the fact that the Democrats have flipped a lot of state legislatures, passage by a sufficient number of states is a real possibility.

Of course there’s always the probability that John Roberts et. al. will declare the “compact” unconstitutional, relying on this provision of the constitution:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

It’s fairly clear that the “compact” at issue here is not what the framers had in mind when they drafted the constitution, but original intent only matters when it lines up with the political preferences of the majority of the Supreme Court. This is not really a compact. Each state is simply providing that it will do as other states do, so long as a sufficient number of states have decided likewise. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a compact as a formal agreement or contract between two or more parties. I’m no longer a practicing lawyer, but my recollection is that once you’ve signed a contract you can’t back out of it unless the other party to the contract lets you do so, but in fact any state that joined this “compact” could change its laws any time it wanted. The kind of compact the Framers envision is like the one that existed between the states that joined the Confederacy.

In any event, given the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress it’s quite likely that Congress would consent, and the provision in question doesn’t say anywhere that the president has a role in the process, but again John Roberts and his ilk will think otherwise.

So, while I started this post thinking I was going to impart good news, as I wrote it I became more and more convinced it wouldn’t happen given the current makeup of the Supreme Court.

But wait, maybe there’s hope, for as the article from Mother Jones to which I’ve linked points out, the right wing states might have reason to withhold their disapproval:

While Democrats have been the chief drivers of the national vote compact, Republicans might conclude they would also benefit from a change. On Tuesday, Democrats swept statewide races in Texas, shattering the political epicenter of the Republican Party. The win showed that in a wave, Texas can go blue, and with it, the second-largest state’s 40 electoral votes. Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, and Iowa also saw Democratic sweeps. These results may induce some Republicans to support the compact, reasoning that they might have more luck by actually counting millions of Republican votes in California and New York, for example, than by hoping swing states go their way in tough years.

That logic probably applies to 2028, so we’d have to hope that both the Republicans and the Roberts court think in the short term, though Roberts could always come up with a rationale for finding it okay in 2028, but not okay after that.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Election Day Aftermath

Wednesday, November 4, 2026

I spent Election Day registering new voters, something I did on three other days during the early voting period. Based on the number of people we registered on the other days I worked, I figured it would be a slow day, and I had a book and my IPad ready to help me pass the time. I ended up spending about 10 minutes on them, as we had a line of new registrants throughout the day. My job was to give them ballots, explain the voting process for new registrants, and log the ballots (secured in envelopes to maintain privacy) onto a logbook. We were so busy that by the end of the day I had about 20 or 30 ballots still to process, as I was constantly explaining the process to new registrants. Although I could not see their ballots after they voted, I was required to see their registration applications, and I noticed a sort of hopeful sign. Of the hundred or more that I reviewed during all the days I worked I’d say that for every Republican registrant there were six or seven Democrats. Young people were especially likely to register as Democrats. I should add here that I strictly followed the rules and never talked politics with the registrants. In any event, those signs were hopeful.

That was followed by some really great local news. Joe De La Cruz, who was a state representative some time ago, put an end to the Senatorial career of Heather Somers, she who insisted that there was no reason for her to talk about Trump’s doings because she was concerned with state affairs, as if Trump had no impact on the state. I considered Joe’s chances to be about fifty-fifty, as Heather has been elected several times, and the district snakes up from here in Groton almost to the northern Connecticut border of eastern Connecticut, and eastern Connecticut is Connecticut Trump country.

Even more amazing was Bill Heughins victory over Greg Howard in a state representative race in a district covering parts of Stonington, Ledyard and probably elsewhere. Howard is a cop who has avidly supported Trump’s fascist ICE activities in the state. I think most folks active in the parties around here didn’t give Heughins much of a chance so that was great news.

It all makes you think that maybe people have woken up.

Then came the national news, which the reader must already know about, so I won’t go into detail.

Now we can look ahead. I don’t see the Democrats accomplishing much in the next two years, as my guess would be that Trump will veto anything substantive that they try to do, but that’s all the more reason that they should advocate for, and enact legislation that will appeal to people in these trying times. Among other things, they might point out that we are the sole advanced country in the world that doesn’t provide health care for its citizens.

In order to do that, they need leadership that will be willing to advance progressive goals, rather than shy away by claiming they want to appeal to the nonexistent middle. Both Chuck Schumer, the man who preferred the turncoat Haley Stevens to Abdul El-Sayed, and Hakeem Jeffries will do nothing to advance progressive goals, all of which will make it that much harder for Democrats to move on from here. There’s a petition out there asking the Democrats to reject Hakeem for the speakership. You can add your name here.

Backing up a bit. There may be a way for the Democrats to accomplish things. They could meet with Trump, tell him what they’d like to do, manipulate his demented brain into getting him to think that their his ideas, and take it from there.

I may be wrong about Jeffries. I very much respect emptywheel, so see here.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

History Lesson

Saturday, September 26, 2026

I am currently reading a book recommended by, of all people, David Byrne, at least according to something that popped up on my Instagram feed. The book, Lost Enlightenment, by S. Frederick Starr, is a history of Central Asia between roughly 300 AD to 1100 AD, during which time intellectuals in Central Asia made major advances in numerous scientific fields, such as medicine, astronomy, and mathematics. At the same time they wrote some great works of literature.

All was not well, of course, since the civilization entered a period of decline after that golden age. There are a number of things in the book that make you reflect about the state of things today, but I thought I’d pass on some stuff about one man who ruled a region called Ghanzi, whose name was Mahmud, the first person to call himself a Sultan. He reminded me of someone who is in power today. I’ll leave it to the reader to determine the identity of the person I have in mind.

Mahmud was interested in two things: Enriching himself and being glorified by those around him. He kept a stable of poets whose job it was to write panegyrics about him and otherwise surrounded himself with sychophants. He enriched himself by waging constant warfare and extorting money from those he conquered, in the process destoying the economy of Ghanzi, which had formerly been a commercial center. Needless to say anyone who had a bad word to say about him either kept his mouth shut or risked his life.

I’ll just string a few quotes together from the book:

No art surpasses architecture in its appeal to dictators.Whether in triumphal arches erected by Roman emperors, Darius’s palace at Persepolis, where sculpted friezes depict humbled foreign grandees bearing tribute, or the palace of the Parthian kings at Nina, with its receiving hall dominated by a throne of ivory, architecture proclaims power and conquest. The world’s first sultan may have been born a slave, but he understood this truth as well as any leader before him.

…

He typically laid the expense of maintaining his grand edifices on the reluctant local public…

..the sultan exploited architecture to extol his own greatness, in the process turning buildings into what historian Richard Hillenbrand calls “huge billboards proclaiming various messages to those who enter them”.

The palace doors were “sheathed with gold”.

I haven’t finished the book, but I’m far enough into it to know that Mahmud was there at the start of the decline of the advanced civilization in Central Asia.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Which way is that weathervane pointing?

Friday, September 18, 2026

It’s getting harder and harder these days to figure out whether the latest Trump action is yet another step toward fascism or another sign that his grip on the government may be crumbing around him.

What brings this to mind is this post at Crooks & Liars, in which we learn that Trump has announced his intention to ban various media entities from the White House because they are reporting “fake news”, which is his synonym for “the truth”.

On the one hand, his attempts to control the press reek of authoritarianism, but in the present context they might just as well reek of desperation. He won’t admit it, of course, but he knows very well that he’s likely to lose big in the mid terms, not that it will make much difference for a large part of his agenda, since the Democrats would need a two thirds majority in the Senate to convict him by way of impeachment, so he can continue on with one of his primary agenda items: massive corruption to enrich himself. He won’t be able to get any of his legislation passed, and, hopefully, none of his judicial appointees confirmed, but that doesn’t matter all that much to him. It’s really all about the grift, which will continue.

But, while he’ll still be able to engage in open corruption, losing big time will still be a big hit to his ego. We can only hope that the media being banned will not bend the knee to regain access.

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Hypocrisy Unlimited

Tuesday, September 1, 2026

As a lawyer (I may be retired but I have been keeping my right to practice current) I found this satiric piece to be something worth passing on, as it perfectly illustrates the corruption and hypocrisy of our current Supreme Court, in this case that of Clarence Thomas. Yes, the piece is satire, but the facts are true. It concerns the Thomas dissent in the recent case in which a bare majority of the Supreme Court said that the constitution says what it says: someone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States.

The piece is supposedly written by a former clerk of Thomas who quit after Thomas’s dissent. He just couldn’t figure out how Thomas’s dissent was in any way consistent with something Thomas had written a mere three years ago, in a case in which he had helped destroy affirmative action:

I looked at page six of Thomas’ Students for Fair Admissions concurrence. It said that Trumbull’s revision “evidenced an intent to broaden the provision, extending beyond recently freed blacks and incorporating a more general view of equality for all Americans.”

Those were his exact words in 2023. (I thought we weren’t supposed to call them “blacks” anymore but I wasn’t about to bring that up.)

But Thomas’ draft dissent in Trump v. Barbara said the citizenship guarantee “was enacted for freed slaves such as Dred Scott”—the enslaved Black man who sued for his freedom and whom the Supreme Court said could never be a citizen. It was enacted for people with “no other homeland,” according to the draft dissent, not for children born here to “birth tourists” and other parents Thomas deemed insufficiently rooted in the United States.

I tried to hold both sentences in my head at once. “Extending beyond recently freed blacks.” “Enacted for freed slaves such as Dred Scott.” I got a splitting headache.

The entire piece is well worth a read.

When I was young, we had a Supreme Court that actually issued decisions both consistent with the constitution and motivated by an underlying desire to make this a better country for all its citizens, not just the billionaires. At the time, I would have rejected any notion that we’d go back to the days of a Supreme Court much like that led by Roger Taney. I didn’t quite realize at the time that the court of the 50s and 60s, was an outlier.

I’ve often wondered about what is now known as the Gödel Loophole. Gödel, a German logician who, along with Einstein found refuge in both the United States and Princeton University, while waiting to become a citizen, told Einstein and others that there was a flaw in the constitution that “would permit the United States’ republican structure to be legally turned into a dictatorship”. His friends advised him to keep his mouth shut about it, so no one at the present time knows exactly what he perceived as a flaw, but lately I’ve wondered if it was the possibility of a corrupt Supreme Court doing what our current court is doing: legalizing presidential corruption and confirming dictatorial actions which anyone with the ability to read the constitution can see are unconstitutional.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Our Liberties Threatened | | Comments (0)

Hooray for Martha Marx

Tuesday, August 18, 2026

Lee Elci, New London County’s Rush Limbaugh is the Republican candidate to unseat Martha Marx, who represents the 20th Senatorial District. Elci’s show runs for four hours a day on a Fox owned radio station, and Marx has demanded equal time, citing “FCC regulations and ample precedent”:

By regulation, the FCC says, “no station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office.”

Martha says she’s quite a talker and could easily use up the four hours daily they’d have to give to her.

Right now Elci’s show has been suspended, and if the station decides he must stay suspended, in order to keep Marx off the air, he will likely withdraw his candidacy. Elci thinks he can get around the regulation by not talking about his candidacy or Marx, but that likely fails for two reasons: 1) He won’t be able to stop talking about his candidacy or Marx, and 2) the wording of the regulation is clear, as it bars the use of the facilities and does not address the content of the speech. Also, as the article at the Connecticut Mirror points out, there’s another problem:

His remaining on the air could be considered an in-kind contribution by the radio station to his campaign, a potential violation of state election law for a candidate who intends to participate in the state’s public financing program. Elci said the station lawyers were seeking clarification from elections enforcement officials.

Great move by Martha, who was once a regular at our Drinking Liberally. We miss you Martha.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

More grounds for hope

Thursday, August 6, 2026

It does appear that at least some folks in the red states are beginning to get it, and all that money the Republicans have to convince them to vote against their own interests just isn’t working as well as it once did.

A few days ago I read this post on Crooks and Liars about a proposed constitutional amendment in Missouri:

Tomorrow, Missourians are slated to cast their votes on Amendment 5, a proposition that seeks to increase taxes on seniors and middle-class citizens in an effort to fund massive tax cuts for the highest earners in the state.

The Amendment would effectively dissolve the state’s individual income tax; money that makes up approximately 64% of Missouri’s general fund and serves as the main pool for everything ranging from infrastructure and schools to healthcare and public safety — all in favor of giving the rich a bit thicker lining in their pockets.

As if that weren’t already bad enough, Proposition 5 seeks to close the gap in lost revenue for the state with a steep hike in sales tax, in a state where low and middle-class citizens already pay a wildly disproportionate lion’s share of the taxes required to fund public services. If passed, this Amendment would only serve to pile more of Missouri’s fiscal responsibility onto the shoulders of middle, working-class citizens — teachers, truck drivers, farmers — who already barely manage to keep roofs over their heads and food on their tables, while further unburdening anyone who actually has the money to spare.

I figured it would pass, but boy was I wrong:

Election results from yesterday suggest that the era of tax cuts as a solution to economic concerns may be coming to an end.

Voters in Missouri resoundingly rejected a Republican proposal to eliminate the state income tax and to replace missing revenue with a higher sales tax. The vote was not close: 83.3% of voters opposed the measure while only 16.7% were in favor, despite the fact that groups in favor of eliminating the tax—many of which kept their donors secret—outspent those in favor of keeping it by a margin of more than two to one.

I should have considered it a no brainer, of course, but given the willingness of red state voters to believe all the bullshit Republicans throw at them…

Besides preferring not to pay more in taxes, the voters in Missouri seemed to think that the the reddest of their congressional districts should not have veto power over their votes:

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected an attempt by the Republican-controlled Legislature to make it harder to pass citizen-sponsored amendments to the state’s constitution, preserving a tool that voters across the country have relied on to pass laws their legislatures would not.

The Legislature, like others across the country, had pushed back after voters approved citizen-sponsored amendments that expanded Medicaid, legalized marijuana and sports betting, established a right to abortion, raised the minimum wage and required paid sick leave.

The measure would have amended the state’s constitution to require a majority in each of the state’s eight congressional districts, rather than a simple majority statewide, to pass citizen-sponsored amendments. That would have been the highest threshold in any of the 18 states that allow citizen groups to place constitutional amendments on the ballot.

Who knows, maybe a majority of those voters might wake up and realize they should stop voting for the people who insist on passing laws they don’t like.

Of course, as always, I must add the caveat that it all depends on whether the Republicans are able to steal the election, something they certainly intend to do, and something of which it’s likely the Missouri lawmakers would heartily approve.

Filed in Good News | | Comments (0)

The All Powerful Joe Biden

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

I have a sort of running joke with my wife, one that’s been running since around November of 2024. Basically, I blame everything bad that happens to us on Joe Biden. Bad weather? Joe Biden! Car Trouble? Joe Biden! Not feeling well? Joe Biden!

Of course this all stems from the Republican’s proclivity to blame Biden for everything negative, even if no rational person could do so. It has, ever since Trump was elected, been a major part of their ever more desperate attempts to dodge responsibility for their own actions. This, reported on Crooks & Liars, is one of the latest examples, in which we learn that Biden is the cause of the economic crisis in which the nation now finds itself. The underlying thesis appears to be that while Republicans are running all three branches of government, they are not to blame for the fact that the country is the laughingstock of the world, in economic chaos, and on the verge of a fascist takeover, the latter of which Republicans should be bragging about, as they are all for it. It’s all Joe Biden’s fault and always will be.

This, I think, is another Republican move that, assuming we are able to have fair elections, will do them no good. As they continue to blame a person who has been out of office for conditions they have created they will simply lose support on the fringes while gaining none. No one who is not already deep red MAGA will buy into these claims, while they will slowly but surely help drive away those who are already regretting their past votes for the genius and his cohorts.

Speaking of driving people away in order to please your brain dead (or those with worm infested brains) followers, how many votes is Trump likely to pick up by undermining vaccines by, if you can believe this, criticizing RFK Jr. because “he wasn’t doing more to probe the alleged connection between vaccines and autism”? Is it really good politics, having already driven away the totally sane, to try to drive away anyone who is somewhat sane?

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

When they attack, counterattack

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

This article on Crooks & Liars interested me. A bit of good news as at least some Democrats are waking up:

Rep Gwen Moore of Wisconsin went on C-SPAN and discussed her views about Democratic Socialism and advised her fellow Democrats not to be so afraid of the word socialism because they are going to get called that by the Republicans, whether it’s true or not.

Not only should they not be afraid of the term, they should fight fire with fire, by endlessly telling voters that the Republicans called Social Security “socialism”, and they called Medicare “socialism”, and if that’s socialism then I’m all for it, instead of open corruption and handing money to billionaires. I can still remember when the Democrats were trying to pass Medicare and Ronald Reagan, among others, attacked it as socialism. There’s no need to get into the fine points, since there are significant differences between socialism and communism, which Republicans insist are synonyms for each other. What’s important is to meet the attack head on and point out that Republicans have always opposed these popular programs and have always called them socialist. Also, it wouldn’t hurt to point out that we are the only advanced country in the world where thousands of people go bankrupt every year due to medical bills they can’t pay, while every other country has a medical program that Republicans call socialism that provides free medical care.

It’s good to see that at least some Democrats are getting out of the defensive crouch.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

We’re commies again

Monday, July 6, 2026

The Republicans, led of course by the very stable genius, have decided to resurrect the fifties by calling their Democratic opponents communists.  As documented here, Fox is playing along.

One must wonder if the Republicans are losing their game. One thing they were good at was pushing lies about the Democrats that worked for them, but they seem to be losing their touch. It’s getting to the point where they’re just as bad as the Democrats about labeling their opponents, though all the Democrats would have to do is tell the truth about the Republicans. I still haven’t seen the quite apt term “Fascist” applied by the Democrats to the actual fascists by whom we are currently governed.

It just doesn’t seem likely that trotting out the old slur of communist will have much traction. Particularly when it’s used to condemn Democrats for wanting things like universal health care. It also seems to be a confession on their part that calling someone a “socialist” hasn’t worked either, as a number of Democrats who have been so labeled have won their primaries and seem fated to win in November, again assuming that we are allowed to have somewhat fair elections.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)