SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Absurdity of the Electoral College:
Here's one nice thing we can now say about the Electoral College: it's slightly less harmful to our democracy than it was just days ago. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to "bind" their electors, requiring them to support whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in their state. Justice Elena Kagan's opinion was a blow to so-called "faithless electors," but a win for self-government. "Here," she wrote, "the People rule."
Yet while we can all breathe a sigh of relief that rogue electors won't choose (or be coerced) into derailing the 2020 presidential contest, the Court's unanimous ruling is a helpful reminder that our two-step electoral process provides America with no tangible benefits and near-limitless possibilities for disaster. To put it more bluntly, the Electoral College is a terrible idea. And thanks to the Justices' decision, getting rid of it has never been easier.
[...] The Electoral College, in other words, serves no useful purpose, other than to intermittently and randomly override the people's will. It's the appendix of our body politic. Most of the time we don't notice it, and then every so often it flares up and nearly kills us.
[...] Justice Kagan's words – "Here, the People rule" – are stirring. But today, they are still more aspiration than declaration. By declining to make the Electoral College an even great threat to our democracy, the Court did its job. Now it's up to us. If you live in a state that hasn't joined the interstate compact, you can urge your state legislators and your governor to sign on. And no matter where you're from, you can dispel the myths about the Electoral College and who it really helps, myths that still lead some people to support it despite its total lack of redeeming qualities.
More than 215 years after the Electoral College was last reformed with the 12th Amendment, we once again have the opportunity to protect our presidential-election process and reassert the people's will. Regardless of who wins the White House in 2020, it's a chance we should take.
Would you get rid of the Electoral College? Why or why not?
Also at:
Supremes Signal a Brave New World of Popular Presidential Elections
Supreme Court Rules State 'Faithless Elector' Laws Constitutional
U.S. Supreme Court curbs 'faithless electors' in presidential voting
Supreme Court rules states can remove 'faithless electors'
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @06:07PM (2 children)
A) https://soylentnews.org/politics/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=38449&page=1&cid=1020540#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
B) The president is elected by the States, not the US population. If you want to be a colonizing treaty breaker, change the system by force.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @07:25PM (1 child)
Regarding point B: The whole idea of the Interstate EC Compact is that the states who have adopted it are voluntarily changing how they decide who they send to vote for president. So no force required.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @08:14PM
The problem is that it effects the states that don't agree to it and which wouldn't have been part of the US to begin with, without an EC. You are essentially forcing a party to lose the benefit of a treaty because you don't like the way they think. IF the interstate compact gave objectors the right to choose whether or not they want peaceful secession, it would be justifiable, but without that, it reeks of colonial behavior and mindset. Essentially, you've taken up the underlying moral depravity of "the white man's burden" under the banner of "the Californian's and New Yorker's burden." It's not good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden [wikipedia.org]