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, Interesting) by weirsbaski on Monday July 13 2020, @09:16PM (1 child)
I know a lot of people say "get rid of it" (sometimes on political bounds, depending on whether EC overall helps or hurts their party), but the EC still has one advantage that people don't talk about: limiting the area-of-effect of recount-hell in extremely close elections.
Many of y'all remember the 2000 election- Florida's popular vote was extremely close, and its EC votes were enough to give either candidate the win. So every county and precinct in the state had lawsuits filed, and hand re-counts (and re-re-counts, and special attention paid to "pregnant chads"), and independent-monitors, and did I mention lawsuits? Now imagine if the election was that close on a national level. Ho. Ly. Shit. The EC limits that mess to just individual states where the vote was that close.
Though, I'll rant off-topic also- I'd prefer that states assigned EC votes proportionally to their statewide vote count. Win 60% of the vote in a state with 10 EC votes? Get 6 EC electors. Etc. Yes, I know there's the issue of assigning the last EC vote or two as the popular vote leaves each candidate with not enough to grab the last EC vote, but simple solution: whoever was closest to getting one more elector gets the last one. Advantage of this: even in a "blue" state or "red" state, votes are meaningful. (Ok, rant mode off).
(Score: 1) by brausch on Monday July 13 2020, @11:56PM
I'd go along with distributing the state's votes by each district being for a party, with the two "bonus" votes of each state going to the winner of that state. Wouldn't be a strict winner-take-all but there would be a reward for winning the state. Candidates would be more likely to address issues of interest to all regions of a state, not just the big cities.