Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 13 2020, @04:23PM   Printer-friendly

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'


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 13 2020, @04:36PM (36 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 13 2020, @04:36PM (#1020433) Journal

    Unsure, TBH. There are a few things I like about it, there are more things I don't like. Electoral voters can be pretty much compared to the DNC's superdelegates - they do whatever the hell they want to do. And, that is what the SC doesn't like.

    The only defense that I have ever made of the electoral college is, "Those have been the rules for forever, stop bitching that you don't like the rules!"

    With this ruling, maybe it can be fixed. Probably not though.

    With this ruling, the US becomes maybe a little more of a democracy, a little less of a republic. Is that a good thing? I'm really unsure. Remember, a true democracy is represented by two or more wolves and a sheep, voting on "What's for dinner?" Or, it can be equated to mob rule. Every election cycle, we get whatever the mob wants.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Farkus888 on Monday July 13 2020, @04:53PM (14 children)

    by Farkus888 (5159) on Monday July 13 2020, @04:53PM (#1020444)

    The purpose of faithless electors, I was taught, is related to communication delay. Say a candidate commits murder the day before the election and is arrested. In the early 1800s it was impossible for the average voter to find out in time to change their vote. The electors were more informed and could wisely vote based on the latest information.

    That purpose is gone now that being a (Democrat||Republican) is worse than being a murderer, so this is a wise decision by the court.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Monday July 13 2020, @06:42PM (11 children)

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Monday July 13 2020, @06:42PM (#1020567) Journal

      The purpose of faithless electors, I was taught, is related to communication delay.

      Well, peripherally — but no, not really. It was about all matters related to competence:

      It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

      -- Alexander Hamilton
         the Federalist Papers

      ...and from TFS:

      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

      ...I notice every presidential election. Because what the electoral college does in Montana is erase non-Republican votes from presidential elections.

      In addition, it makes the Republican votes here weigh considerably more heavily then, for instance, Democratic votes in California.

      And that's all without any "faithless elector" issues.

      In fact, the "faithless elector" thing was what was intended to save us from idiots like the dumpster fire sitting in the white house right now. If the voters were being outright stupid, as they were in 2016, and voting in, or getting close to voting in (Trump actually lost the popular vote, remember), the electoral college was supposed to consist of smart, careful folks who would make sure the ship wasn't steered directly onto the rocks.

      But here we are, with an incompetent president, who we weren't protected from by the electoral college, but instead, this loon was inflicted upon us by the electoral college.

      So yeah, it really, really, really, really needs to go.

      And before someone chimes in with the inevitable "Well, if the EC had elected Clinton, you'd be okay with that, right?" Yes, I bloody well would be, because the the EC would actually then be doing the job it was intended to do.

      --
          Cult: The founder made up some nonsense and is still around.
      Religion: The founder made up some nonsense and is dead.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Farkus888 on Monday July 13 2020, @07:50PM (5 children)

        by Farkus888 (5159) on Monday July 13 2020, @07:50PM (#1020612)

        I don't think anyone as partisan as you should have a say. California's Republican votes get ignored just like Montana's Democrat votes. If only 5% of them voted Republican that is twice the entire population of Montana. Short sighted selfish ideations about government like yours got us into this mess. It hasn't always been a Republican elected by the electoral college against the popular vote. Democrats have benefited in the past too.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:34PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:34PM (#1020661)

          But, but, all of Montana's Republicans are Californians! They own Ranchettes! Not to mention the Oracle sell-out from New Jersey ("Bodyslam" Gianforte) and the real estate developer from Maryland ("Maryland Matt). As Sen. Doc Melcher said in the '80s, "there's a bunch of out-of-staters coming into Montana for the campaign, and they're stepping in some of what they're trying to sell!
          Problem with being a beautiful state, and the Last Best Place, it attracts rich assholes like flies.

        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday July 14 2020, @11:29AM (2 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday July 14 2020, @11:29AM (#1021156) Journal

          I don't think anyone as partisan as you should have a say.

          Well, that's the thing about voting in any form of Democratic system, isn't it: the voters are generally expected to make choices if they participate. Even if, for some incomprehensible reason, they disagree with Farkus888.

          It hasn't always been a Republican elected by the electoral college against the popular vote.

          While this is technically true, it is only true because the first time it happened, it was't a Republican or a Democrat, because the parties had not yet formed. That was so offensive to the winner of the vote (Andrew Jackson, by a considerable margin) it served as the impetus that caused the Democratic party to form, and this was formed out of the side that was overridden, so in hindsight, it was still the Democrats who were overridden, they just hadn't set themselves apart by that party designation as yet.

          Democrats have benefited in the past too.

          No, they have not. [wikipedia.org] Ever since there has actually been a Democratic party, the EC's popular vote overrides have favored the Republicans.

          Five times the EC has overridden the popular vote thus far.

          In 1824, the first time this happened, it actually caused the creation of the Democratic party because Andrew Jackson, who received 152 thousand votes, lost (via the EC) to John Quincy Adams, who received 114 thousand votes — this was over a 10% win by popular vote which the EC threw in the trash in favor of the loser, Adams.

          The other four times, the Republican, having lost the popular vote in each instance, was emplaced in the presidency over the Democrat who won the popular vote.

          Certainly it is true that the Democratic party of those first few overrides was radically different from the Democratic party today; and so was the Republican party. From the issues of reconstruction to women's right to vote, the parties both maintained platforms that most people today would find radically offensive. So it's somewhat of a case of apples vs. oranges.

          But in recent years, let's say post-Reagan, the sides have been pretty clear and consistent in terms of party positions and in these cases — as with those preceding them — it has been Republican-favoring overrides every time.

          --
          An apple a day keeps anyone away.
          If you throw it hard enough.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2020, @10:51PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2020, @10:51PM (#1023536)

            I don't think anyone as partisan as you should have a say.

            Well, that's the thing about voting in any form of Democratic system, isn't it: the voters are generally expected to make choices if they participate.

            You were making an argument the voting system should be modified because, in your view, it favors your opposition. You can have a say as a voter, but you are not impartial so should not have a say on the voting rules.

            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by fyngyrz on Sunday July 19 2020, @01:53AM

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday July 19 2020, @01:53AM (#1023596) Journal

              I'm completely impartial WRT a candidate's party; I'm all about their positions and their history, and of course if the party has handed them wrongheaded positions, then the party will also figure into that, but not by name or "just because."

              But when a candidate has the mind of a grade schooler, that's a perfectly valid reason to eschew them. Trump is feeble minded compared to a normal adult. You can't get around that. The man is flat-out incompetent to hold the position of the president of... well, anything, really. Much less this country. Likewise, when the candidate's history provides clear illustration of a failure to treat people with anything even remotely resembling a fair hand, that also is a well qualified reason to decide against them.

              Your assertion that I'm not impartial in some disqualifying manner is ridiculous. To be impartial requires that the matters being considered are otherwise equal, and then the decision be made on the merits; I made, and am am making, such a decision — Trump is lacking in merit in so many concrete ways as to make the decision obvious, and this was the case prior to the votes being cast.

              Those who decided otherwise are the ones who are not being impartial; because only a partial outlook towards an incompetent — ignoring racism, a truly reprehensible attitude towards women, abusive behavior towards the handicapped, lying to the press, etc. — could have allowed someone to vote for Trump.

              Another factor was all the BS about Clinton; hardly perfect, but Benghazi, the "pizza shop", and so on? FFS, that was such utter nonsense. Yet people (and more importantly, the people in the EC) still voted for him and to this day, there are people here who rattle on about how bad a choice Clinton was compared to Trump. How absurd.

              No one is impartial — or should be impartial — when faced with incompetence, evil, and abusive behavior. If I was impartial in such cases, then I'd be someone you couldn't trust with these matters.

              You may have the last word, if you're so inclined. I'm done here.

              --
              When I dunk my cookies, I think of you.
              I hold them under until the bubbles stop.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:56PM (#1021227)

          The Electoral college was supposed to prevent the kind of incompetence that gave us this:
          https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-two-different-pandemics-eu-vs-us-coronavirus-cases-spike-28-june [gzeromedia.com]

          It failed spectacularly.

          And before anyone says, "what makes you think anyone else would do better?" the answer is simple, nearly the entire world did better, almost every nation (Sweden might be an exception) handled this better than we did. Therefore, it stands to reason, that on average, anyone running for office was likely to do better than this guy.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:01PM (#1020624)

        How about somebody besides Clinton or Trump?

        Why is this so difficult?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by deadstick on Monday July 13 2020, @09:52PM

        by deadstick (5110) on Monday July 13 2020, @09:52PM (#1020744)

        Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
        Religion: A large, popular cult.

      • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday July 13 2020, @09:56PM (1 child)

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Monday July 13 2020, @09:56PM (#1020749)

        I did the math one time (didn't save it anyplace where I can find it right now) and figured out that a candidate can theoretically get well over 90% of the popular vote and still lose the election. Figure out the minimum number of small states (population wise) that provide an electoral victory and win each of those states by 1 vote (this also assumed winner take all). The losing candidate can get every other vote available, it would not matter. Highly unlikely, but possible.

        • (Score: 2) by toddestan on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:08AM

          by toddestan (4982) on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:08AM (#1020935)

          Theoretically, all you need to do is figure out the minimum number of states that a candidate would have to carry to win. Assume that in those states, exactly one person voted, and they voted for that candidate. In all the other states, assumed 100% turnout and every vote was for the opposing candidate. In that case, someone could win with less than a couple dozen votes total, with tens of millions of votes for the opposing candidate. Theoretically, of course.

      • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:23PM (#1021188)

        "outright stupid, as they were in 2016"

        You voted third party then?

        Because that was really the only rational option in 2016. My guess guess is you were a year-of-the-beaver voter, based on your self rightous attitude. Great, good for you, you helped elect Trump. Much like BLM. They were (and currently are) huge contributors to the Trump campaign. Nothing encourages turnout on the right like beating the shit out of the elderly and setting buildings on fire. And crashing Bernies podium during the primary? Yeah, great effort BLM! WhooHoo! Keep it up!

        BLM is Trumps greatest ally.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:03PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:03PM (#1020686)

      In the current day, the average voter may never find out the truth thanks to the media.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday July 14 2020, @07:14PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday July 14 2020, @07:14PM (#1021434) Journal

        Sure they can. They can do the homework themselves. It is harder.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:05PM (#1020465)

    Anything that reroutes the peoples vote is only a tool for the richest bidder.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:08PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:08PM (#1020468)

    Every election cycle, we get whatever the mob wants.

    Maybe if the USians would get better educated (not necessarily schooled), that wouldn't be such a bad result?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @05:31PM (5 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 13 2020, @05:31PM (#1020504) Journal

      Broken beyond repair.

      The people who can fix US Education are the very ones who benefit from it being broken. Keep the reality TV shows flowing.

      The people who can fix Campaign Finance are the very ones who benefit from it being broken.

      The people who can fix Corruption are the very ones who benefit from it.

      The people who can drain the swamp are the very ones whose lives are dependent upon its very existence.

      Any questions?

      Believing that it can be fixed at this point is like thinking that systemd won't soon take over the screen saver, followed by the entire display system software stack.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:13PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:13PM (#1020700)

        The people who can fix US Education are the very ones who benefit from it being broken. Keep the reality TV shows flowing.

        Not so much. Curricula are generally set on a state by state basis. Are you claiming that *every* state legislator/education department official is opposed to quality education? If so, with what evidence do you make such a claim?

        What's more, education funding is generally set at the local level, with input/funds from the state as well.

        In fact, less than 10% of K-12 fundng comes from the Federal government [ed.gov]. Which means the vast majority of school funding comes from states and municipalities (often, but not always, from *local* property taxes).

        Given that only a few thousand (at most) votes is often enough to elect a school board member, and not too much more is required to elect town/city council members, mayors/county executives, etc., forcing positive change at that level is absolutely doable.

        The people who can fix Campaign Finance are the very ones who benefit from it being broken.

        This is absolutely true. However, many states and municipalities have implemented serious campaign finance reforms, including publicly funded elections. Doing so more broadly, especially at the Federal level, will require folks around the country to make lots of noise and vote out those who oppose such reforms.

        This is a big problem for our political system and needs to be addressed. Making appropriate changes will require *grassroots* action.

        The people who can fix Corruption are the very ones who benefit from it.

        That's only partly true. Corruption at the Federal level is minuscule compared to the corruption at state and local levels.

        Favoritism, nepotism and self-dealing need to be harshly dealt with as well. Again, change like this needs to come from the grassroots, with constituents *demanding* real changes. Unless and until that happens, ALEC [alec.org] written legislation is in the future (not to mention the present) of your state/municipality.

        The people who can drain the swamp are the very ones whose lives are dependent upon its very existence.

        This isn't even close to being true.

        The majority of those elected to Federal office (mostly due to financial reporting requirements) limits a lot of that while the official is in office. Closing the government/private sector revolving door, as well as campaign finance reforms can address this pretty easily. But again, it requires grassroots *action*.

        Any questions?

        Many. You claim that there's only doom and gloom, but you make no recommendations for change, even though there are many, many avenues to effect positive change. Much of that needs to happen at the state and local levels, where your voice can be much louder than on the national stage.

        1. What are *you* doing to address these issues?
        2. Are you aware of the efforts in your state/municipality to address them?
        3. What do you propose we should do about it?

        I'll start with those three questions. I look forward to your answers and comments on my response.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 15 2020, @01:38PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2020, @01:38PM (#1021897) Journal

          Curricula are generally set on a state by state basis.

          Curricula are generally set by the state of Texas.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday July 14 2020, @07:20PM (2 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday July 14 2020, @07:20PM (#1021437) Journal

        We're going through a painful period now, but the tools to shatter the status quo are here and regular people are gaining proficiency with them. What happens when we all have solar panels and/or wind turbines? Oil companies lose their control. What happens when additive manufacturing hits a tipping point? Manufacturers lose control.

        Those are only a couple revolutions underway now. There are many more. The crappy political and economic systems we have now are ripe for collapse.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 15 2020, @01:39PM (1 child)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2020, @01:39PM (#1021898) Journal

          While we have a right to peaceably assemble, we do not yet have a right to repair.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2020, @06:39PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday July 16 2020, @06:39PM (#1022506) Journal

            We don't, but we should. After the collapse of the First American Republic, we must write it into the new Constitution. The Right to Privacy should also be formally declared, so that we can kill off social media and other invasive parties.

            Personally, I would also like to split up Washington DC and re-locate its various departments all over the US so that the Beltway culture dies. The banking system needs to be broken up and decentralized as well. If we don't rip up the hidden, non-elected systems of control we'll never have real democracy.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @05:19PM

    by Opportunist (5545) on Monday July 13 2020, @05:19PM (#1020483)

    Yes. Yes I would. It is a relic from the times when information traveled as fast as a horse could carry its rider and it was a full time job to actually know who you'd want to vote for and what that person stands for.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @05:48PM (1 child)

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday July 13 2020, @05:48PM (#1020533)

    Remember, a true democracy is represented by two or more wolves and a sheep, voting on "What's for dinner?"

    The problem with that analogy is that right now, what we have is 2 wolves and 3 sheep voting on "what's for dinner?", and the 2 wolves win the vote because their 2 votes count more than the sheep's 3 votes.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday July 13 2020, @11:58PM

      by Mykl (1112) on Monday July 13 2020, @11:58PM (#1020840)

      Actually, the polling station was outside of the Sheep Pen, so the Sheep were unable to vote during the day (it was a Tuesday - a normal workday for most). By the time they were let out into the field again, the polling booth had closed.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:24PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:24PM (#1020654)

    Thank you for your wise comments that you don't know, Runaway. Shirley you are a stable genius of Constitutional Law!!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:00PM (#1020754)

      And, you, Shirley, need to get back into the stable. Who named a horse "Shirley", anyway?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:11PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:11PM (#1020768)

    Perhaps you should stick to citing your favorite fake news site [mediabiasfactcheck.com] to spread misinformation about wearing masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 [soylentnews.org]. You don't have a lot to add to this discussion.

    Yes, the rules are the rules. Except the rules include a mechanism for changing them, which is by ratifying an amendment to the Constitution.

    The electoral college made more sense in the early US. Significantly greater autonomy was granted to the states, with mechanisms created to protect that autonomy and agreed upon in the Connecticut Compromise. That autonomy has been limited significantly by the fourteenth amendment and has been further eroded by judicial precedent. The idea of a confederation of states selecting a single leader is largely obsolete. The electoral college also effectively means that a Republican vote in Hawaii or California, or a Democratic vote in Wyoming or the third district of Nebraska are largely irrelevant. Those people can cast votes, but those votes are rendered essentially meaningless by the voting trends in those places. Abolishing the electoral college would give those people a greater voice in the government, which is a good thing. It might be reasonable to make representation in the Senate proportional, too, but retain the longer terms so it's less susceptible to voting trends in any single election cycle.

    Also, in the early US, voters were far less informed than in the present day. Limited modes of communication and generally less travel meant far fewer opportunities for voters to be informed about presidential candidates. State legislatures chose senators and, frequently, electors. It was the responsibility of the legislatures to be informed and make good decisions, particularly because most people didn't have the same level of access to information. The legislators were often highly educated people at a time when the standard of education was significantly lower. The people voted on candidates within their districts, people who they might well have known personally, and would be in a much better position to make an informed and wise decision about voting for. Because people are generally far more educated and have far greater access to candidates through radio, TV, and the internet, this is a relic of the past.

    So how about we abolish an antiquated system that effectively disenfranchises a significant amount of voters?

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 13 2020, @10:39PM (5 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 13 2020, @10:39PM (#1020791) Journal

      Change the Senate to be more like Congress? So, you want a more democratic system, which will tend to smother all those "flyover" states. Got it.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:08AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:08AM (#1020846)

        First off, fake news Runaway, I actually live in Nebraska, which is one of those "flyover" states. Because of the population differences, I have about 20 times the representation in the Senate than a resident of California. Why is this reasonable?

        The current system is smothering large states like California. Changing the Senate to be proportional won't smother small states. It will simply put large states on equal footing with them.

        If the system was implemented properly, it could offer some significant improvements over what we have now. Let's say we gave states one senator per million residents. Nebraska would still have two senators but California would have 40. The Senate would still have six year staggered terms. That means California would elect 13 or 14 senators per election cycle.

        This could be a statewide election in which parties conduct primaries to determine a list of senators from their party, ranked in order of the votes received. In the general election, each person votes for a party. The Senate seats are given proportionately from the party vote, starting at the top of each party's list and working downward. In such a system, California wouldn't send 40 Democrats to the Senate. Instead, you'd see a significant amount of Republicans. It would also be a lot easier to elect third parties. In a state the size of California, less than 10% of the vote would be needed to elect third party candidates. In California's case, this likely means electing some Greens. But in other large states like Texas, it might mean sending Libertarians to the Senate.

        This wouldn't smother states like Nebraska at all. It would, however, give equal representation to large states like California. In a state like California that typically sends two Democrats to the Senate, this would allow other people in the state like Republicans to have some representation in the Senate. Why would this be a bad thing at all?

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:10AM (1 child)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:10AM (#1020937) Journal

          But, California and other populous states already enjoy that sort of "equality" in the House. The Senate isn't supposed to be just like the House.

          No, California isn't being "smothered". That's some kind of talking point that you've picked up somewhere.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:17AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:17AM (#1021038)

            We've already made the Senate more like the House. The seventeenth amendment did just that.

            A legislature need not have two very distinctive chambers for the government to be a properly functioning democracy. New Zealand used to have a bicameral legislature but abolished its upper house decades ago. For that matter, Nebraska has a unicameral legislature. At the state level, the differences between the upper and lower houses are often in legislative powers, different term lengths, and differently sized districts. But the differences are less distinct than at the federal level. While the UK has a parliamentary system, the US legislature is modeled after the UK in many respects. However, the House of Lords has lifetime appointments but significantly less legislative power than the US Senate. That said, making the Senate representation proportional to the population wouldn't make it identical to the house for the reasons I stated in my prior comment.

            In terms of the rights of "flyover" states, we're talking about geographic regions with boundaries that were influenced heavily by political disputes during the 19th century. For example, Dakota Territory was split into North and South Dakota before being admitted because the Republicans wanted to admit two states to get more representation in the Senate. State lines were essentially gerrymandered to exploit the disproportional representation in the Senate. In the case of South Dakota, much of the state actually belonged to the Sioux, so there were concerns about whether it was even viable as a state. The state was eventually opened up to settlers when the Sioux were coerced and deceived by George Crook into signing away their land. The Sioux were forced onto reservations against their wishes. The US attempted to disarm the Sioux, armed conflict broke out, and the result was the Wounded Knee Massacre.

            So let's be clear. Preventing "flyover" states from being "smothered" really means preserving the gerrymandering of state lines from over a century ago because it's politically beneficial to your party in the present day. I'm all for insulating the Senate from the whims of voters in any particular election, something that is already done with the staggered six year terms. But your argument for the rights of "flyover" states isn't particularly meaningful when those states were drawn up for the sole purpose of gaining a political advantage in the Senate.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:30AM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:30AM (#1021012) Journal

          Because of the population differences, I have about 20 times the representation in the Senate than a resident of California. Why is this reasonable?

          Because the Senate represents states not individual people.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:39AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:39AM (#1021050)

            House members doesn't represent "individual people", either. They represent districts.

            In the proposal I described, elections would still be statewide, and senators would still represent states. The only difference is that more populous states would have larger delegations.

            In the past, it might have been more correct to say that senators represented the states when they were elected by the state legislatures. That changed with the seventeenth amendment, which required that senators be directly elected by the people.

            So the senators now represent the people, as do the representatives. The difference is the amount and geographic boundaries of the people they represent -- except for states like South Dakota, which only have one representative.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:45PM (#1021201)

    One tally means you only have to corrupt one counter.

    IMHO the value of the electoral college is that it distributes the fraud. Which may help to cancel it out to some degree.