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 (3 children)
Looking at it as a non-american with a STEM background, the Electoral College is not absurd. What is absurd is the strong double rounding that is involved: You round a first time at state level (winner gets all EC votes for that state) and then again at a federation level (winner of the EC vote is president).
Not only will double rounding always lead to a result that is less representative of the underlying input. In this specific case it gives much more importance to winning a small majority in a couple of large states, as opposed to winning a large fraction of votes in a majority of states. I honestly cannot see how that could be considered a good thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:20PM
Because conservatives get undeserved power so they like it.
In the US Republicans truly are that simple to figure out, selfish greed that rallies behind hatred. Obviously there is some wiggle room for each individual, but statistically they are hateful greedy jerks.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:45PM
I don't follow what the alternative would be to the latter...our president is 48% Clinton 46% Trump? How do you do that in practice, and will it involve staining the carpet?
Originally the president and vice-president weren't on the same ticket, which led to the 1796 election [wikipedia.org] where guys from opposite parties got elected. It ended up being such a mess they amended the Constitution so it wouldn't happen again.
Or are you saying that the president should be some sort of nonpartisan neutral person chosen from Congress or something? Because good luck with finding somebody to fit that description in our partisan nightmare world here.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @10:25PM
Are you old enough to remember the phrase "hanging chads"?
That was a case study in the benefits of double rounding. State counts are purely local problems. We just add easily verified small numbers across state lines.
With no rounding, every election would require correctly counting all ~50M ballots. With rounding, we just have to count ~1M ballots 50 times.
One task is MUCH easier than the other.
For all its quirks, the electoral college has served us well by turning many close elections into very clear results.