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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:20PM (18 children)
Electoral college or not, house, senate, president, none of this matters much when 60% of voters don't even bother to get off their lazy asses and vote.
Fix that problem first. Then you can worry about technicalities like the electoral college.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:22PM (6 children)
That isn't a problem. You have no right to force people to say they give a shit when they don't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @06:51PM (1 child)
i never said, or even hinted at forcing anyone to vote. Funny you chose to interpret my post this way.
But when a free, democratic (republic) nation has more than half its population not even bother to vote, there's definately something wrong. Maybe 60% of the population is illegal aliens, but more seriously, maybe they believe their vote doesn't make a difference, maybe they approve none of the candidates, maybe they take freedom for granted because they have never experienced tyranny, war and bloodshed, maybe they're uneducated and fail to learn the lessons of a history they know too little about.
Whatever the reason, it's a sign that something is wrong socially, culturally, and/or economically with that society. There will always be anarchists and libertarians who will question the very principle of democracy and governement, or sociopaths who just don't give a shit. But those can't possibly explain a voting participation of only 40%, especially since participation is well above 50% in every developped democratic nation except the U.S.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Monday July 13 2020, @11:26PM
But, but, but .... The US has more guns.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @07:55PM (3 children)
Mandatory voting might not be bad if it were easy enough for people to indicate that they want to abstain from voting.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:51PM
I'm inclined to support mandatory voting, but only on conditions. First is strong voter ID laws (which, to forestall the usual bitching, should include free state IDs for voting after verifying eligibility). Second is that all ballots must include NOTA (None Of The Above) as an option, and if none of the candidates can beat the NOTA vote count, the post either stays empty or requires a new election with different candidates. Cause I can tell you NOTA would have won the 2016 presidential election, hardly anyone I know was voting _for_ anyone that election, it was mostly _against_.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @11:18AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:24PM
This creates an arms race whereby all sorts of methods, legal and illegal are employed just to pad and suppress votes for president. Given that the two major parties already burn well over a billion dollars (probably will be over two billion dollars in 2020) on an election cycle, that indicates the stakes are already huge enough to justify a lot of these games. And the most corrupt regions will have the greatest marketable ability to change an election.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @05:27PM (9 children)
To fix that problem, you first have to address the problem that for most voters, their vote doesn't even matter. If you live in a country that is deeply entrenched on either side, why bother going to the election at all?
(Score: 4, Informative) by choose another one on Monday July 13 2020, @05:44PM (8 children)
Can (relatively) easily be fixed - make voting mandatory.
Aussie turnout >90%.
No, not 100%, but there will always be some awkward sods (even in Aus) and protesters, but they usually only get a small fine.
With turnout >90% there is much less potential for argument that the nation didn't get what it voted for.
Pretty sure Aussies who don't really want to vote are still free to spoil their ballots or write "none of the above" or various descriptive expletives.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @08:04PM (6 children)
How does this address that it's pointless to go to the election? You only add forcing people to waste their time to knowing it's a waste of time. Yes, it wouldn't be as blatant anymore that people know their "right to vote" is essentially just an elaborate wanking session with zero meaning, but it would only apply a nice paint of coat for the turd.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday July 13 2020, @09:01PM (5 children)
I think it would work OK if you also had the choice of "None of the above".
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @09:31PM (4 children)
And what the hell should that accomplish? If I wanted to be ignored, I can get that with less effort.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:27PM (3 children)
In the event, that someone doesn't win the majority of electoral votes, congress decides.
https://www.usa.gov/election [usa.gov]
So, given a None of the above option and it actually meant something. The election might get kicked back to congress, who would then decide who gets to be president and vice president.
Do you trust congress to make a better choice for who should be President + Vice President?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Touché) by Opportunist on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:15PM (2 children)
Great. So my choice is essentially between electing a crook, electing a moron or leting a bunch of crooks and morons choose between them.
Let's say I'm not entirely sold on your idea.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:42PM (1 child)
Only way to fix it is at the city and state level. Stop voting in crooks and morons to city hall, to mayor, and to governor. Then/simultaneously, stop voting in crooks and morons to the house and senate.
The only way to fix the government is from the ground up, you're not going to magically get a better president, and keep everything else the same.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:48PM
You are aware that the system pretty much ensures that there is no chance for a honest man to get elected for any relevant office, yes?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:58PM
You would have to (well, not *have to*, but it would be really stupid not to, in my opinion) add a "none of the above" option to the ballot if you started requiring universal voting in the U.S.
The thing is, in our current system, if you aren't informed enough/don't want to make a decision, nobody is forcing you to. Requiring everybody to vote without adding "none of these idiots" to the ballot just muddies the vote up further, by introducing a lot of arbitrary votes to the mix.
I assume you're referring to that concept of "popular mandate" here. Would be interesting to see whether universal voting significantly changed what the balance came out as. When the majority is only 51% of the voters, that still means the other 49% aren't being represented; it's just that nobody has come up with a better system so far (although that ties into our 2-party system vs parliamentarianism too).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Monday July 13 2020, @09:41PM
Can't blame people for abstaining when they're offered a choice between manure and excrement from two parties with long histories of broken promises and blatant corruption.