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, @06:47PM (6 children)
Without the Electoral College, Presidential candidates would only need to sway and campaign in a few, highly populated areas and states. The Electoral College ensures that a prospective Presidential Candidate has to make broad appeals to a wide range of the populace. I think that's a very valuable thing, and generally ensures that Presidents are a better reflection of the broader American culture, not just Urban centers.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Monday July 13 2020, @07:29PM (1 child)
So you believe in minority rule? the small number of people in smaller states dictating to the larger number of people in larger states?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:48PM
Don't strawman people. The current system doesn't enable anything like "minority rule." California's vote counts more than 1800% as much as Alaska's vote.
The electoral college was aimed at preventing a tyranny of the majority. The idea is that large states get more representation, but not absolute. And small states get *some* at least somewhat meaningful representation, but not equal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:57AM (2 children)
The fact of our current president certainly puts the lie to that statement.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:09PM (1 child)
You cannot consider things in isolation. Clinton ended up being not only an incredibly unlikable person but was actively and literally calling large chunks of the population various pejoratives and just pissing on everybody except her in-group. She not only did not appeal to much of the population but was seemingly going out of her way to attack people outside of her in-group. It was, by far, one of the worst run campaigns I have ever seen in my life - and I suspect is probably one of the worst in history.
Trump is certainly a polarizing figure, but he was less polarizing than Clinton - so he won and by a very wide margin.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2020, @02:11AM
You're a troll, but I'll give you a little snack:
That election was over nearly four years ago. Why can't you get past it? Or is it that you just like reliving it, as it encouraged hateful scumbags like you? Get over it.
Trump barely *squeaked* by, with tiny margins in three states (WI, MI, PA, a total of 77,000 votes across those three states, with ~20,000,000 votes cast)
Clinton also had 3 million more votes nationwide.
You're a liar, a shill and a piece of shit. Now get back under your bridge!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:42PM
It also distributes the fraud. Which may have a canceling effect to some degree. If you only have one tally, then you only have to corrupt one counter.