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: 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?"