Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 13 2020, @04:23PM   Printer-friendly

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'


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @06:31PM (3 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 13 2020, @06:31PM (#1020556) Journal

    It is amusing that Democrats are who want more police accountability and Republicans, starting with Trump, who oppose that because they "support" the police.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Touché=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:00PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:00PM (#1020576)

    It is amusing that Democrats straw-man Republicans as not wanting police accountability because Republicans don't follow ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards) and 'defund police' mantra. Yet, at the same time not address the core point that the problem of police accountability, brutality, and inner city violence is primarily an issue in areas controlled by Democrats at every level of power for decades. Why are democrats incapable of solving the problem and why do they need Republicans, who don't have this problem, do what democrats say?

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @07:45PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 13 2020, @07:45PM (#1020607) Journal

      It is the single AC on SN who brought up that burning cities and brutal police are the fault of Democrats somehow.

      Doesn't one logical fallacy deserve another?

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @07:48PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday July 13 2020, @07:48PM (#1020610)

    Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really want major reforms to policing in the US.

    You can tell this because neither major party presidential candidate has said they want major policing reforms, pretty close to zero governors are saying they want more policing reforms, and even at the local level politicians of both parties are offering their constituents everything they can think of to placate them except more policing reforms.

    And before you say "But Joe Biden said ...", if you look at what he's offering, it's basically identical to what the Obama administration was doing, which was writing a bunch of new rules for local cops to follow if their department had been caught behaving badly, and then doing nothing when those new rules were ignored just like the old rules had been ignored. The watchword for American policing for decades has been to have all the right regulations on paper, and then the cops on the street do pretty much whatever they feel like, and when the public complains about an individual officer's conduct at worst that officer will get fired and hired by another department to do what they did before.

    Politicians of both parties support the cops, including unjust and illegal policing, because they want to be able to have people who will bust heads on their behalf whenever they want. Never mind the law.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.