There is also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Yeah, I know the NaPoVoInterCo, too. (Bonus point to anyone who gets the reference)

While it's a step forward, I find it lacking in so far that while it guarantees that the person who got the most votes won, it doesn't do anything about the animosity between the parties of in favor of other parties. Basically, with NaPoVoInterCo, people will even more call out somebody who went third party, as with it all that counts is the total amount of votes and nothing else.

There's nothing legally to prevent that, but politically it's a different story. 

Let's say California thought it was a really good idea, and decided to allocate on a strict popular vote. In that case, Biden would receive about 36 electoral votes, and Trump 19 (assuming that voting patterns did not change).

So, we're not at Trump 251 and Biden at 287.

Let's say that Pennsylvania also decides to do that. There's basically an even split there, but since Biden won more, we'll call that 11-9. That means Trump 260 and Biden at 278.

Let's suppose Georgia also likes the plan and is split 8-7. Trump 267 Biden 271.

And lastly, we'll do the same for Connecticut, which was around 60-40. That would be roughly 4-3 We're not at 270 for Trump, and 268 for Biden.

Obviously this example stacked the deck by having only states Biden won using the system. But, it shows why most states which are considered "safe" for either side would be reluctant to change. Unless there were a corresponding number of safe states from the other party, it would lead to the result they presumably don't want.

On the other hand, states like Pennsylvania or Florida may be more willing to go for proportionality. The parties may both agree to this as it allows them to essentially hedge their bets. However, it is not in the state's interest to do so. Unlike safe states, which get ignored because they're seen as either guaranteed or unwinnable, a state like Pennsylvania gets tons of attention from presidential candidates, and it becomes more important for candidates to please them. So, the status quo actually benefits the state and their unlikely to adopt a proportional method.

There are tons of better ways of doing things, but any change will almost inevitably benefit one party or the other, and both parties are too powerful to let that happen.

So I covered all these points.  The NaPoVoInterCo is what I was referring to in my first point where I said even if enough states past it there would still be a lot of legal challenges in the court. 

As for the nothing that hinders the states I covered that in my example.

If California went proportional and let say Biden now got 65% percent instead of 100% of the electoral votes so let call that 35.  Now Biden need 20 more to become president.  If all blue states did it and all the red states stayed winner take all now we talking about a landslide Trump win.

Same goes in the opposite direction.  Therefore doing it on a state by state basis become very difficult unless you getting a broad range of states agreeing to do it all at once.  Other wise you just giving one party a huge advantage and doing nothing to help third parties gain power.

Trump aide really gets into it with Fox host. This is more sad than funny.

I really wonder what the future of the Republican party will look like. Will it just go back to the establishment status quo, is Trumpism here to stay, or will there be a schism between the two?

It's up to the courts to decide ultimately, but an aggrieved party has to petition the court for the relief they feel is appropriate. If the court does not have the power to grant relief, an issue is deemed non-justiciable. And I'm 99% sure that if you don't at least suggest a form of relief that the court can actually provide, you can not raise a claim.

Anyways, this is cancel culture. They've spent years creating the label of "mainstream media", to discredit and attack anything they disagree with. And the moment Fox news disagrees with them. Bam. Welcome to the mainstream media bitches. That is their version of #cancelfox.

The difference frankly is that the right wing cancelculture warriors are better at lying. The people on the left saying cancel X are at least honest enough to say "we find what X said offensive and want them to shut the fuck up". Whether you think they're being ridiculous or not, they're at least up front about it.

When the right wing does it, they coat it in a thick layer of bullshit. It's not that we don't like gay/trans characters in movies/games, it's that we don't want them being political. It's not that we don't like a company saying happy holidays, it's about religious freedom. It's not that we don't like athletes kneeling for the anthem, it's about respecting the troops. It's not that we don't want the media speaking against Trump, it's that they're all biased.

The whole "Equal Protection Clause" line seems to be total nonsense, essentially arguing that because mail in ballots are different by nature, they should all be thrown out. I can't imagine any judge even giving that line of thinking the time of day, so if that's what they are riding with I'm pretty comfortable that the result will stand. We just need to get into December so we can move on from this whole nonsense. 

I feel like she's just confused on that. Maybe I'm just giving her the benefit of the doubt, but it seems so patently stupid that it can't be.

Everyone in Pennsylvania had the right to request a mail in ballot, so I can't see how there could possibly be any case for an equal protection violation of the 14th Amendment. 

What they could argue is that it is unfair to voters in other states who may not have been able to vote absentee without a specific reason. But, you couldn't make an equal protection claim based on that, because it's not like Pennsylvania somehow prevented voters in Texas from voting.

What I think she probably meant, although I'm meeting her more than halfway, is a violation of the Privileges and Immunities clause which states that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." So, if citizens in Pennsylvania have the right to vote absentee without any specific reason, and Texas citizens don't, that somehow violates the clause.

Granted, that's a pretty wild interpretation of that clause. Generally, the clause is interpreted to mean that you have to give out of state people or businesses the same treatment as in state people and businesses. This kind of interpretation would essentially mean that the state with the most restrictive voting laws effectively sets voting rights for all 50 states, which would violate the full faith and credit clause and probably the 10th Amendment. But, at least it sort of maybe almost makes a little bit of sense, compared to a 14th Amendment argument.

I don't think a single person is surprised that he lost or is surprised that he is throwing a tantrum and trying to fight the results. He's a bitch and he will go out like a bitch.

My post was in reference to this lawsuit, which I assumed to be the one she was referencing: https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/2020-11-09-complaint-as-filed.pdf

Specifically, look at points 13 and 14. It largely argues that there was a different set of procedures for in person and mail in voting which created a "two tiered" system. Imo, this is complete BS. As you said, everyone had the ability to vote by mail or in person, and in neither instance is any vote being held above another. It seems virtually every court is basically ignoring the wider request to throw out the mail in ballots and have instead focused on smaller subsections of ballots (and similarly ruling against Trump, ex https://wgntv.com/news/judges-rule-against-6-trump-campaign-lawsuits-to-invalidate-nearly-9000-pennsylvania-ballots/ )