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, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:18PM (1 child)
With no offense whatsoever intended, it's kind of scary you have to ask this question - but I suspect *many* might wonder the exact same thing. It's scary because the reason is what should be the absolute cornerstone of every political decision.
Big states want everything to be decided by population, so they can just increase the numbers are gradually control the entire country. Small states want everything to be decided by statehood, so they need not worry about a tyranny of the majority. The electoral college is a *compromise*. Bigger states get a bigger voice than they do based on statehood alone, and smaller states get a bigger voice than would based on population alone.
Compromise is increasingly seeming to be a lost art in politics, and I think that is playing a major role in the division of our nature.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @08:01PM
I didn't spend too much time learning about the US election system, it took me long enough to understand the (at least as ridiculous) EU parliament voting system. I tend to care about things that have an effect on me before bothering to care about stuff that doesn't.
And trust me, coming from a rather small country in the EU, I can absolutely understand the plight of, say, Delaware. But I can also understand how it must be frustrating for Californians and Texans to notice that any single person from Maine has more say in a US election than their own whole extended family.