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 bradley13 on Monday July 13 2020, @05:11PM (9 children)
The real point of the Electoral College was an attempt to avoid making the President a popularity contest. It was somewhat the same idea for the Senate, which was also originally not directly elected.
Direct democracy works here in Switzerland, but it works because we are small, and at 8 million the cracks are starting to show. At around 300 million, direct democracy makes no sense, zero, nada. The country is too diverse, different regions have different priorities. If anything, the US should be moving to be less a democracy and more of a republic.
Power to the people? Yes, absolutely: divest the federal government of power and give more power back to the individual States - closer to the people being governed. Won't happen, of course - federal politicians will never give up that power. But it would be the right move.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:20PM (1 child)
Well stated. Also, cheers for taking an academic and informative tone rather than trying to tell another nation how stupid they are for not doing things the way you think they should.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:14PM
Oh, Great! The American ex-pat in Switzerland, and the off-res Tribal member agree on the configuration of the United States, because no one should tell other nations what to do? And they are worried about being called stupid? Oh, deplorable!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:31PM (6 children)
It's still a popularity contest, it's just that the votes from the people in less populous states are given more weight. No other difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:40PM (5 children)
Have we gone so far that what he is saying is literally unintelligible to some? The idea of the United States was to have basically 50 small nations able to cooperate together and come together as necessary. It was not to have some monstrous behemoth of a federal government dominating the rest of the country. The president in most cases would be less relevant than your state governor.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @08:03PM (3 children)
The original idea of the US was to have basically 13 small nations able to cooperate together and come together as necessary. That got thrown out the window very quickly, because it turned out that those 13 small nations were unable to cooperate together under the Articles of Confederation: All 13 small nations wanted benefits, but none of them wanted to pay for it, so they didn't.
That's when they decided to form the Constitution and a new federal government, which specifically said that no, they weren't small nations, and couldn't do a lot of the things nations did like have an army or negotiate with foreign governments.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @11:04PM (2 children)
Dude, I'm not American and I know your history better than you. The only Federal force was supposed to be the navy. The national guards are the armies of the states, and the Federation was prohibited from funding an army for a period of more than two years. That's still in the Constitution and is why they have to pass massive military funding bills so often.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:03PM (1 child)
IIRC the U.S. didn't maintain a standing army until after WW1. It's a fairly recent thing, historically speaking.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2020, @04:14AM
I think technically they still don't. It has to be re-authorized by Congress every two years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:47PM
Which is exactly the case. As has been shown time and time again throughout this pandemic. The president makes ridiculous statements and does very little, while state governments are left to their own devices.