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) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @07:55PM (3 children)
Mandatory voting might not be bad if it were easy enough for people to indicate that they want to abstain from voting.
Would a Dyson sphere [soylentnews.org] actually work?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:51PM
I'm inclined to support mandatory voting, but only on conditions. First is strong voter ID laws (which, to forestall the usual bitching, should include free state IDs for voting after verifying eligibility). Second is that all ballots must include NOTA (None Of The Above) as an option, and if none of the candidates can beat the NOTA vote count, the post either stays empty or requires a new election with different candidates. Cause I can tell you NOTA would have won the 2016 presidential election, hardly anyone I know was voting _for_ anyone that election, it was mostly _against_.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @11:18AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:24PM
This creates an arms race whereby all sorts of methods, legal and illegal are employed just to pad and suppress votes for president. Given that the two major parties already burn well over a billion dollars (probably will be over two billion dollars in 2020) on an election cycle, that indicates the stakes are already huge enough to justify a lot of these games. And the most corrupt regions will have the greatest marketable ability to change an election.