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: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @04:53PM (16 children)
Wasn't the original purpose, essentially, because rich people were afraid of how poor people would vote?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @04:59PM (11 children)
No. It was a rightful fear against a tyranny of the majority bullying small population states. The fact is, without the EC, there would be no United States because only a moron would bequeath all power to remote entities which often become deaf to the needs of those remote areas. The colonies had just got done fighting a revolution for that exact reason. Without the EC, they would have remade the essential characteristics of that against which they fought.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @05:24PM (10 children)
How does the electoral college address that? Larger states have more delegates than smaller ones.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:28PM (7 children)
Not proportionately more though. It was a compromise between one state, one vote and one person, one vote. Even back then the states with the largest populations wanted to be able to force their way of doing things on others or it would have been one state, one vote right from the start.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @07:57PM (6 children)
And how can this not be incorporated without electorate? Just have every state have X "presidental votes" that will be determined by the number of people voting for a candidate, i.e. you "win" one "presidental vote" per Y votes.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @08:25PM (5 children)
Because that wasn't the deal. A complicated way of doing one person one vote is just a complicated way of doing what the various independent nations ("states") rejected.
Again, if you want to change the treaty, those who don't agree with the new terms must be given the opportunity to decide to accept the new deal, or reclaim full status as an independent nation. If you don't give the individual nations comprising the US such a right, you are acting by force to impose a government on unwilling subjects of those objecting nations, and that makes you an imperialist colonizer as well as a treaty breaker.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @08:34PM (4 children)
Careful what you wish for. How about this: Election power based on GDP. If you don't like this and want to go independent be my guest. You think the states that are already struggling to make ends meet can continue without the federal money they get blown up their rear?
I don't think we want to go down that road.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @10:01PM (3 children)
How about not. To do it by GDP, or population, or number of butterflies -- you have to change the treaty. If all parties don't agree, then either the treaty stays in force or it doesn't and all of a sudden, you have a bunch of different nations causing problems for the NY-LA remainder.
Either live up to what you agreed to, or accept the fact that you are treaty breaking imperialist. That BTW, makes you a major asshole and the opposite of enlightened.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:48AM (2 children)
Let's do it by GDP, and if you feel you're misrepresented, you're free to leave.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:18PM (1 child)
I do recall reading somewhere recently that the Democrats are now the party of the wealthy and corporate. They are long past the party of the worker or populists.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:18PM
They never were the party of the worker. You don't have a party of the worker. And if you want a populist whose main claim to eligibility is that he'll tell you whatever you want to hear, you already got Trump, that job is taken, too.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:18PM (1 child)
With no offense whatsoever intended, it's kind of scary you have to ask this question - but I suspect *many* might wonder the exact same thing. It's scary because the reason is what should be the absolute cornerstone of every political decision.
Big states want everything to be decided by population, so they can just increase the numbers are gradually control the entire country. Small states want everything to be decided by statehood, so they need not worry about a tyranny of the majority. The electoral college is a *compromise*. Bigger states get a bigger voice than they do based on statehood alone, and smaller states get a bigger voice than would based on population alone.
Compromise is increasingly seeming to be a lost art in politics, and I think that is playing a major role in the division of our nature.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @08:01PM
I didn't spend too much time learning about the US election system, it took me long enough to understand the (at least as ridiculous) EU parliament voting system. I tend to care about things that have an effect on me before bothering to care about stuff that doesn't.
And trust me, coming from a rather small country in the EU, I can absolutely understand the plight of, say, Delaware. But I can also understand how it must be frustrating for Californians and Texans to notice that any single person from Maine has more say in a US election than their own whole extended family.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @06:33PM (3 children)
The original purpose of EC because rich people were afraid that stupid, uneducated, and illiterate people would vote.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @07:28PM
And you, as well as the rich people of the 1780's, both seem to have decided that "rich" and "stupid" are antonyms, when we've seen plenty of evidence that they aren't. As long as your society has the concept of inherited wealth, the odds that there will be a substantial number of rich morons out there are pretty much 100%.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @08:07PM
Well, then it's obvious that the electoral college failed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:58PM
Let's leave Runaway out of this. He's got a gun.