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: 2) by istartedi on Monday July 13 2020, @06:15PM (2 children)
If you think sectionalism is bad now, just wait until LA, New York, Chicago and perhaps a few other big cities are the only places that really decide who the president is.
The EC isn't like it is because of some antiquated thing about electors riding to DC in wagons. It's there to prevent sectionalism. Same deal with the Senate. We're not supposed to have a democracy. It's a republic, for very valid reasons.
Whenever this comes up, I feel like people just weren't paying attention in civics classes.
As it stands, these remedies failed to prevent our first civil war for a variety of reasons. They may have *delayed* it, and allowed the notion of a cohesive union to stay in place long enough for it to be worth defending.
If we dismantle the republic in this way, it has a good chance to accelerate a possible 2nd civil war. If you think "flyover country" is unhappy now, just wait until it's democrat after democrat and they feel like they have no voice. So you say, "there aren't as many people there, so that's democracy". Democracy, as they say, is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:42AM
It's also worth noting, the "majority" so often touted is a mere couple percentage points. 152m against 148m is basically even odds in a civil war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:49PM
"Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the other ones"