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, @07:24PM (8 children)
Another way of looking at things is that she won California by a wider *margin* than she won the popular vote. If California split on a normal margin, she'd have lost the popular vote and electoral vote alongside.
The idea of a electoral college is to avoid having state radicalism play a major role. If California goes batshit leftist, which they have, with your idea it'd make every other state's elections pretty much meaningless. This is a *really* bad idea in a nation that's already increasingly divided.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Monday July 13 2020, @08:51PM (7 children)
No, she won the popular vote by 2.87 million votes. The state's totals would not have changed that.
We don't have a real batshit leftist group in the US. We have Democrats (center-right) and Republicans (extreme-right). I'm guessing you lean Republican; just remember that everything else is left when you are extreme right.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:05PM (1 child)
What a coincidence!
Almost exactly the number of Covid-19 infections in the US? Just saying.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:24PM
We've sailed past that long ago. Thanks Trump!
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @05:58AM (4 children)
I love how you decide to state things so matter of fact without even bothering to check the data. She won California by more than 4.2 million votes. In other words her entire "popular vote victory" is a fraction of her margin in California.
And left/right is a completely meaningless qualifier in today's times. If you haven't realized it, the actual battle right now is authoritarianism vs libertarianism. California is tearing down statues, destroying artwork, actively stoking selective xenophobia, and the hub for political censorship and retribution on an international scale. It's so ironic (but typical) that San Francisco is also the center of endless virtue signaling. Unimaginably wealthy people signaling their virtue as they step over the masses of homeless, impoverished, and human excrement on the way to their billion dollar open office platforms of social justice. It's like something out of a satire, but it's real life. The democratic party in general is turning towards a degree of political authoritarianism come fascism that has not been seen in the (developed) world in many decades. And it never leads to good things. I am liberal but have gone from being luke warm on the democratic party to vehemently anti-democrat - a transition I expect many are currently going through.
Some who know no better might find it unusual to call the democratic party fascist. After all Wiki tells me that only right wing parties can be fascist. Here is the Fascist Manifesto. [wikipedia.org] That is *literally* the book on Fascism that motivated and guided the Fascist Party. You'll probably find you agree with just about everything they stood for on paper. You filthy fascist! Of course I kid on that part - they're not bad ideals by any means. So why do we now just call them the fascists? Because they acted like fascists in pursuits of their ideals - and that behavior has nothing to do with left or right wing. About the time you're trying to destroy people for their political opinions, destroying statues for what they (in your mind) politically represent, and destroying artwork because it's "problematic" - you've become a fascist, and that is how history (once all of this stupidity settles down) will remember you, once again. Oh and let's not forget the rewriting of history to pretend that you can't be fascist because you're liberal - that is something out of 1984.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:50PM (2 children)
It simply does not matter if CA had a margin of 4.2 million. The popular vote is the grand total for the entire US. Why would a arbitrary section of it matter?
I more or less agree on your last two paragraphs. My only comment is that both parties have been strongly authoritarian for quite a long time. That and the fact that both parties seem to run by the extremists.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:37PM (1 child)
Because the popular vote implies she was widely supported in America, but somehow unjustly lost. In reality the election looks like:
1 State: Wins by 4.2 million votes
49 States: Loses by 1.3 million votes.
It paints a much different picture than "won the popular vote." Of course it's an accurate fact to state that she won the popular vote, but it's misleading. Even more so because I think California's version of "liberalism" is somewhat 'special'. Those guys loving a candidate is not something to praise.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday July 15 2020, @03:09PM
Again, why does this matter? Are the CA voters somehow not valid because of some nebulous "special liberalism"? No, their votes count too.
Disagreeing with their politics doesn't give you the right to disenfranchise them.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 15 2020, @02:43AM
Great post.
And for Azuma's benefit, you see I'm not the only liberal disgusted by the DNC. Your tactics are failing.