R Magic Brow

Some Democratic states have long planned to override the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote, and these fantasies are closer to coming to fruition than ever before.In fact, some are eyeing 2028 as the earliest window to implement the plan that could change the way the United States elects its presidents.The deadline to join the compact for 2028 is July 20, 2028.They call the plan the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and analysts have found a feasible path to activating it by the next presidential election.The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement between a growing number of states that "guarantees the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia)," according to the National Center for Interstate Compacts. The basic idea behind the compact isn’t to legally remove the Electoral College from the Constitution, advocates say. Rather, the Electoral College would essentially be rendered moot when the number of states’ electors equals 270 or more.Currently, 18 states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington — and the District of Columbia have enacted the compact, according to National Popular Vote.The states' electors add up to a total of 222, meaning the state equivalent of 48 electors would have to join the compact prior to election season in order to activate the agreement. RELATED: 'This is how you rig elections’: Stephen Miller’s wife slams Wikipedia for scrubbing Abdul El-Sayed's past The deadline to join the compact for 2028 is July 20, 2028. The National Popular Vote, which would undermine the Electoral College while leaving it intact, has been floated as an idea for several years, though it was not treated as a viable option because the number of states and electors never came close to 270. The blue wave that swept the nation last week, however, may bring the compact into more serious conversation going forward as it is widely believed that the National Popular Vote would benefit Democrats and harm Republicans at the ballot box.Multiple articles published in the months leading up to the midterms identified very similar paths to 270 votes, that is, five states that could realistically be on the verge of joining the compact.The identified pathway to 270 consists in having Arizona (11 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (19 votes), Michigan (15 votes), Nevada (6 votes), and Wisconsin (10 votes) join the compact. The elector vote total for all five states is 61, so Pennsylvania and Michigan plus two of the three other states would have to join to make it an option for the next presidential election.Previously, the problem with this path was that none of the states had a Democratic trifecta, the most favorable condition for getting the compact signed into law. For context, the 18 states in the compact are or were blue trifecta states when they joined.The midterms changed the landscape in these other five states dramatically. Nevada, the only state on the list with a Republican governor, flipped blue. All of the House and Senate chambers, which were generally a mix of blue and red before the midterms, flipped to the Democrats without exception. The result: All five states, which were previously mixed Republican and Democratic, are now Democrat trifectas.Democrat control, however, does not guarantee the successful passage of the law entering the state into the compact, and other large obstacles remain even if they do pass the laws. Trent England, a spokesman for Save Our States, told Blaze News that voters should be “very worried about this attempt to hijack the Electoral College.”England pointed out that many Democrats do not want to make this change, arguing that the importance of certain states, like Pennsylvania for example, would dramatically change for the worse for Democrats under the compact.The Save Our States spokesman also argued that the compact is “seriously flawed” for a number of procedural reasons, saying “It has no provisions for a nationwide recount, says nothing about how to combine votes from states using ranked-choice voting, and relies on cooperation from states not in the compact.”Concerns over congressional approval of agreements between states as well as individual voters' rights plague the initiative. As former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasky told Fox News, "Absent a constitutional amendment, the legal and practical barriers are insurmountable," noting that the results of a popular vote will likely have surprising and unintended effects that may essentially cancel out votes. It is believed that if enough states join the compact to officially activate the agreement, the case would quickly be elevated to the Supreme Court to determine if it is constitutional. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

West Hollywood has found a new job for local government: keeping track of who's sleeping with whom.On November 2, the City Council approved an ordinance allowing romantic groups of three or more adults to register their relationships with City Hall. The new arrangement comes complete with official declarations, termination procedures, and a six-month waiting period before someone can register a new relationship after terminating an old one. Romance may be complicated, but leave it to California progressives to make it bureaucratic. Imagine the legal bills when four ex-partners, three breakups, and one shared lease end up in court at the same time.The ordinance, which takes effect December 2, doesn't legalize group marriage or create state-recognized domestic partnerships. Instead, it establishes a municipal registry for relationships involving at least three adults, extending certain housing protections and visitation rights. More importantly, the city explicitly describes the measure as a first step toward expanding recognition and benefits at the state and federal levels.Bedroom blitzMarriage used to mean a serious, lifelong commitment between two people, carrying duties that extended well beyond someone's personal fulfillment and a shared lease. California progressives now view that traditional two-person model as little more than an arbitrary speed bump in need of a thorough flattening. These are the same cultural crusaders who spent decades telling traditionalists to stop imposing their morality on the public. Yet they refuse to leave long-standing institutions alone, insisting on redefining the exact social foundations they once claimed shouldn't have any fixed meaning at all.West Hollywood has been laying the groundwork for some time. In March, the City Council approved a separate ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on family or relationship structure, including polyamorous arrangements. Now it has moved from protecting unconventional relationships against discrimination to giving them formal civic recognition.Naturally, the adults get their headline-grabbing victory while the children are left to navigate the potential collateral damage. Media coverage celebrates grown-ups seeking public approval for their polyamorous setups, yet pays considerably less attention to the children growing up inside them. What happens to parenting, discipline, and daily stability when several adults occupy parental roles, particularly if partners come and go? A child may develop a close attachment to an adult who has no legal parental responsibility and can leave the arrangement without the obligations that accompany divorce.It's not you; it's usWest Hollywood's ordinance doesn't rewrite state custody laws. Indeed, the city's own legal analysis acknowledges that multi-partner relationships lack many of the parental rights, child-support obligations, and property protections associated with marriage. Local politicians are eager to recognize the adult relationship while leaving these considerably more complicated questions for someone else to resolve.Though it's difficult to have sympathy for many city staffers, spare a thought for the poor soul stuck managing the paperwork for this administrative circus. Under the new rules, all partners must sign a declaration, provide identification, and agree to notify City Hall when the relationship changes. Anyone wishing to end the arrangement must file a termination statement and certify that the other partners have been notified.Better yet, anyone who has registered a multi-partner relationship must wait six months after a termination statement is filed before registering another one.Even in the brave new world of officially sanctioned romantic flexibility, apparently there's a bureaucratic cooling-off period.The city anticipates negligible administrative costs and plans to charge registration fees. But West Hollywood didn't merely pass a far-left, non-binding resolution to feel good about itself. It established a formal registry, complete with declarations, amendments, termination forms, and certified copies. City Hall now has a whole new category of relationships to administer.RELATED: That thing critics of gay 'marriage' were promised wouldn't happen keeps happening A Maryland man and his three girlfriends, 2016. Nikki Kahn/Washington Post/Getty ImagesThrouple goalsFor generations, traditional families served a clear social purpose: raising the next generation and keeping communities grounded. Today's progressive policy treats every domestic setup as an interchangeable lifestyle preference. A healthy society can certainly tolerate unconventional, even outlandish, living arrangements without pretending that all are equal or that all help build a stable society.West Hollywood wants to give official standing to domestic setups that may not survive past January. Polyamory is marketed by some of its enthusiasts as an evolved, modern form of intimacy that can overcome old-fashioned jealousy. Yet adding more people to a relationship also multiplies the opportunities for insecurity, petty resentment, and financial squabbles. City Hall can hand out all the official certificates it wants, but no government seal can force three, four, or five different people to agree on who takes out the trash or cleans up after the explosive Pomeranian.West Hollywood has been here before. In 1985, it established a domestic partnership registry that helped give same-sex couples a form of official recognition decades before nationwide marriage equality. City officials now see the multi-partner registry as another pioneering step in that tradition.The city's own staff report acknowledges significant complications in extending benefits and legal protections to multi-partner relationships. Its proposed solution is to establish recognition now and hope that state lawmakers, employers, insurers, and other institutions eventually follow.When these multi-person arrangements break down, the questions become more difficult. Who remains responsible for a shared lease? What happens to jointly purchased property? What obligations, if any, should former partners have toward children they helped raise? West Hollywood's registry leaves most of these questions unresolved. Standard divorces between two people already drag on for years and empty bank accounts faster than a North Korean hacker. Imagine the legal bills when four ex-partners, three breakups, and one shared lease end up in court at the same time.Lawyers may eventually have a field day. But anyone concerned about America's future should be shedding a tear. Because unlike Vegas, what happens in California rarely stays in California.

Google has an unwavering foothold in the U.S. public education system, selling cheap Chromebooks and providing cloud-connected services like Drive, Docs, and more to students from coast to coast. Now it wants to use its power to force Gemini into schools, and the internet isn’t happy about it.The Mountain View tech giant started off November by announcing an expansion of Guided Learning for schools. Originally unveiled for Gemini in August, Google describes Guided Learning as an “interactive study tool that coaches students through the process of problem solving through open-ended questions and step-by-step breakdowns.”Google is taking an all-or-nothing approach to its online services in the classroom.Instead of simply telling students the answer to a problem — as many AI services do today — it shows them how to find the answer on their own by offering steps along the way like a teacher or a mentor.So far, that all sounds like a more responsible way to use AI at school. So what caused the internet to rage against Google?Google is broadening Guided Learning’s capabilities to include other Google products for school, like Google Search and Google Classroom. While that also sounds fine, the problem lies in the implementation.Google is taking an all-or-nothing approach to its online services in the classroom. If teachers want students to use Guided Learning, they have to give their students access to Search, Classroom, and Gemini. If they don’t want Guided Learning, all three services will be disabled, taking students back to a time before the early 2000s.This approach has summoned the ire of many on the internet, with many claiming that Google is forcing Gemini on students by attaching it to Search.In this way, Google would walk away with two major wins: It would bring young students into the Gemini ecosystem in hopes of turning them into lifelong customers while snubbing competitors like ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok. It would also boost Gemini’s user numbers, artificially making Gemini appear more popular than it is with consumers, as its market share lags firmly behind ChatGPT in second place.RELATED: Google's data-devouring AI wants everyone's personal information solar22/Getty ImagesGoogle responded to the uproar with a lengthy post on X, writing:We want to clarify what we announced today about our education services. Today’s announcements give schools more choice, not less. Here’s what we announced:Gemini, Gemini Notebook, and Search will be OFF 🔴 by default. This is based on K-12 schools asking for more control over student use of AI services.Schools are in control: They can choose to turn ON 🟢 one, two, or all of these services individually.We are also updating Search for schools to make it better for learning. Specifically, AI Mode and AI Overviews will offer step-by-step guided learning through problems, so that students don’t get quick answers to schoolwork.We know there’s concern about students using AI to shortcut schoolwork, and schools have told us they want control. That’s exactly why we are making these changes today to address the feedback we’ve heard from educators in recent months. And we’ll continue to engage deeply with educators to ensure we are giving schools more choice, more controls, and improved Search for learning.According to the New York Times, Google VP of education Chris Phillips said otherwise, stating, “Search and A.I. are deeply integrated.” He continued by claiming that schools that disable Gemini “will not have access to search, and they’ll see a message from their school that indicates it’s not available.”Naturally, this kind of mixed messaging only sows confusion among parents, students, and teachers. Blaze News reached out to Google for clarification, but we did not receive a response by the deadline.The Guided Learning expansion comes at a dubious time, as Google admits that AI Overview, its primary AI tool that replaced classic Search, is costing the company ad revenue because users aren’t clicking through to websites with Google Ads like they once did.The Guided Learning update is rolling out to schools “in the coming months,” likely in 2027. In the meantime, Google claims that it is listening to public feedback, and there’s a chance it may revise its approach before the full launch. Parents concerned about the program can submit their feedback to Google here. It also may be a good idea to speak with the administrators.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The 2026 midterms did more than punish Republicans. They rearranged the political fortunes of presidential hopefuls in both parties — and created some unexpected winners and losers, some with consequences for 2028.Some changes were obvious on election night. Others became apparent only as the shock waves spread.The sting is sharp, but the Band-Aid is off.LosersStart with Republicans. They entered November 3 holding the White House and both chambers of Congress, only to suffer a defeat that will shape their next two years and perhaps much longer.The biggest loser, undoubtedly, was President Donald Trump. Midterms are almost invariably referendums on the president, with his party in Congress receiving the verdict. A Republican setback was expected. Its scale was not. The defeat will hamper Trump’s final two years in office, and its consequences for his political legacy may last much longer.The Republican Party is the second-biggest loser. What a wave took may take another wave to return. Some Republicans who deserved to lose did. Plenty who did not deserve to lose went down with them. Democrats have a chance to turn this year’s gains into an enduring congressional advantage.Republicans’ third-biggest loser is Vice President JD Vance. Before November, he seemed to have the inside track to Trump’s endorsement and, with it, the 2028 Republican nomination. Now he is tied to a crushing Republican defeat. He left a safe Ohio Senate seat to join Trump’s ticket; on November 3, Democrat Sherrod Brown won that seat from Republican Jon Husted. Instead of launching a presidential campaign from the Senate, Vance faces two years in an administration under siege.RELATED: Why does God allow the wicked to win elections? Klenger/Getty ImagesDemocrats have losers too, though they may be harder to spot amid the party’s happiness hysteria.At the top of that list is Kamala Harris. She spent much of 2025 on the sidelines and was scarcely more prominent in the midterm campaign. Democrats have now demonstrated that they can win big without her. In fact, they did considerably better without Harris in 2026 than they did with her at the top of the ticket in 2024.California Gov. Gavin Newsom is another Democrat loser. His national profile no longer looks quite so indispensable when Democrats are winning in places far removed from California and its political baggage. His endorsement did not save Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) from defeat. And his decision to commute the death sentences of all 548 people on California’s death row — a move requiring state Supreme Court approval in many cases — gives future opponents an obvious target. Newsom may find that his California record travels less well than he expects.The third-biggest Democrat loser may be the Democratic Party itself. Impossible? Consider the democratic socialists, now more deeply entrenched in the party and more numerous in Congress. The more elections they win under that banner, the harder it becomes for party leaders to keep them from defining the national Democratic agenda.WinnersThe biggest winners, appropriately enough, are Democrats. They won up and down the ballot and across the country. Candidates captured offices they might never have imagined winning. Some will hold those offices for years, perhaps multiple terms, as incumbency gives them opportunities that were out of reach before November 3.Second are the democratic socialists. They have penetrated the Democratic Party to an unprecedented degree. Their ranks in the House will more than double when the new Congress convenes. Democratic socialists already lead New York and Seattle; last week, candidates from the movement won mayoral elections in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. The country’s two largest cities will soon have democratic socialist mayors.Even in defeat, they made a showing: Angie Nixon lost Florida’s Senate race to Republican Ashley Moody by fewer than three percentage points.Such results will make it harder for Democrat leaders to argue that socialist candidates cannot win. And the movement is unlikely to stop recruiting candidates while the victories keep coming.The third-biggest Democrat winners are the party’s prospective 2028 presidential contenders — anyone not named Harris. They have just been handed a national victory to claim and a new political landscape in which to compete.RELATED: The day after tomorrow: A new GOP Tom Brenner/Getty ImagesBelieve it or not, Republicans had winners too.First are their prospective 2028 presidential contenders not named Vance. The Republican nomination looks more open than it did before the election, and more candidates are likely to enter. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Secretary of State Marco Rubio may find their positions strengthened as Republicans look for a way forward.Next comes Florida. It held firm against the blue wave while Texas drowned. Both states have robust economies and deep Republican benches, but Florida now stands out as the party’s strongest large-state showcase. Byron Donalds’ victory in the governor’s race gives the GOP another rising figure to watch — and another reason for national Republicans to look south.Finally, the Republican Party of 2028 may be a beneficiary of the very defeat it has just suffered. Win or lose, the party eventually had to move beyond Trump. A narrow midterm outcome would have made that reckoning easier to postpone. A rout did not. The sting is sharp, but the Band-Aid is off.