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 Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:19AM (4 children)
Make it so that instead of winner-take-all, a state's electoral college votes are portioned out proportionally to the popular vote. So let's say Squarestate has 10 EVs to give out, and its popular vote breakdown is 70% R, 28% D, 2% "other." That's 7 EVs to the Republicans, 3 to the Democrats, and zero to Vermin Supreme.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:37AM (3 children)
The outcome of state elections are almost entirely a state matter. The constitution lays out some requirements and conditions (for instance if a state chooses to restrict voting rights to some group for whatever reason, that group is effectively subtracted from their population for purposes of representative allotment) but lets states go whatever route they want. If a state wants to go proportional, it can. That's the whole point of this ruling. The opinion added in the original article entirely misses this point to go on a misinformed political rant.
There is also one major problem with proportional electoral systems. It would incentivize political homogeneity within states since that would yield disproportionate political influence. I'm sure that makes sense but just to make it crystal clear - a 50/50 California would be worth about 28 electoral votes for a win. A completely homogeneous California would be worth 55. See the start of this post to understand what a dangerous moral hazard you've now created.
Proportional state electorals would only be a good idea with a proportional federal government. And that's something I'd also definitely agree with but the chances of it happening are nil.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:32PM (2 children)
I don't follow why exactly this is a problem...let alone a "dangerous moral hazard."
It might change the way politicians for high office campaign, but why is splitting California's votes proportionally dangerous? Then it makes it harder for a candidate to achieve an electoral college win?
I beg to differ.
"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, @04:17PM (1 child)
The outcome of state elections are almost entirely a state matter. The constitution lays out some requirements and conditions (for instance if a state chooses to restrict voting rights to some group for whatever reason, that group is effectively subtracted from their population for purposes of representative allotment) but lets states go whatever route they want.
You do not want a world where states are trying to make as close to 100% as possible of their population vote for the "right" party.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @05:54PM
Oh, you're talking about, if a state disenfranchises 99% of its population because it knows it can get the last 1% to reliably vote a certain way?
Which fixes the problem you're talking about.
You weren't nearly as clear about what you were talking in your original post as you seem to think you were.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"