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 Snotnose on Monday July 13 2020, @08:25PM (2 children)
Politicians orient their campaigns to the electoral college. Get rid of it, and they will orient their campaigns to the new standard. Which then a very vocal minority will bitch about.
It really pisses me off to read "foo got more popular votes, but bar won because of electoral college". Guess what? Both Foo and Bar aimed their campaigns on the electoral college. Foo just fucked up (read: HRC ignoring that 40% of the electorate hated her ass, but the cities loved her).
What really gets me? I'm gonna vote for a senile old fart just because the Orange One is so damned incompetant.
/ something has gone wrong in our primaries
// 4 years ago, should be convicted felon vs total asshal
/// now? total asshat vs senile old white dude
I came. I saw. I forgot why I came.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:24PM (1 child)
You can be forgiven for
// 4 years ago, should be convicted felon vs total asshal
even though it is pretty stupid, the GOP had multiple investigations into Clinton and couldn't dig up anything
But NOW?
/// total asshat convicted criminal vs senile old white dude
Unless you paid zero attention, or if you're just led by the nose by lies from Fox and company, there is no way you could miss Trump's criminal behavior. The most corrupt piece of shit to ever hold office and even now you can't grok it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @10:40PM
You're right. The Democratic political machines play a much cleaner, more genteel game. The present administration does not have the same level of etiquette and discipline. Amateurish corruption is easier to spot.
Last I checked, charges were brought against both Clinton and Trump. Both exhibited clearly unsavory behavior that would have low-level employees terminated without question. Neither was brought down. Both had blind admirers who viewed this as validation.
I know many women voters who could not stomach HRC because of her cold, calculated support for WJC through the scandal. They felt her actions, and the Democratic support for WJC, set back the "me too" movement a good decade or two. This role model validated bad behavior in a very public way.