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: 5, Informative) by Farkus888 on Monday July 13 2020, @04:53PM (14 children)
The purpose of faithless electors, I was taught, is related to communication delay. Say a candidate commits murder the day before the election and is arrested. In the early 1800s it was impossible for the average voter to find out in time to change their vote. The electors were more informed and could wisely vote based on the latest information.
That purpose is gone now that being a (Democrat||Republican) is worse than being a murderer, so this is a wise decision by the court.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Monday July 13 2020, @06:42PM (11 children)
Well, peripherally — but no, not really. It was about all matters related to competence:
...and from TFS:
...I notice every presidential election. Because what the electoral college does in Montana is erase non-Republican votes from presidential elections.
In addition, it makes the Republican votes here weigh considerably more heavily then, for instance, Democratic votes in California.
And that's all without any "faithless elector" issues.
In fact, the "faithless elector" thing was what was intended to save us from idiots like the dumpster fire sitting in the white house right now. If the voters were being outright stupid, as they were in 2016, and voting in, or getting close to voting in (Trump actually lost the popular vote, remember), the electoral college was supposed to consist of smart, careful folks who would make sure the ship wasn't steered directly onto the rocks.
But here we are, with an incompetent president, who we weren't protected from by the electoral college, but instead, this loon was inflicted upon us by the electoral college.
So yeah, it really, really, really, really needs to go.
And before someone chimes in with the inevitable "Well, if the EC had elected Clinton, you'd be okay with that, right?" Yes, I bloody well would be, because the the EC would actually then be doing the job it was intended to do.
--
Cult: The founder made up some nonsense and is still around.
Religion: The founder made up some nonsense and is dead.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Farkus888 on Monday July 13 2020, @07:50PM (5 children)
I don't think anyone as partisan as you should have a say. California's Republican votes get ignored just like Montana's Democrat votes. If only 5% of them voted Republican that is twice the entire population of Montana. Short sighted selfish ideations about government like yours got us into this mess. It hasn't always been a Republican elected by the electoral college against the popular vote. Democrats have benefited in the past too.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:34PM
But, but, all of Montana's Republicans are Californians! They own Ranchettes! Not to mention the Oracle sell-out from New Jersey ("Bodyslam" Gianforte) and the real estate developer from Maryland ("Maryland Matt). As Sen. Doc Melcher said in the '80s, "there's a bunch of out-of-staters coming into Montana for the campaign, and they're stepping in some of what they're trying to sell!
Problem with being a beautiful state, and the Last Best Place, it attracts rich assholes like flies.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday July 14 2020, @11:29AM (2 children)
Well, that's the thing about voting in any form of Democratic system, isn't it: the voters are generally expected to make choices if they participate. Even if, for some incomprehensible reason, they disagree with Farkus888.
While this is technically true, it is only true because the first time it happened, it was't a Republican or a Democrat, because the parties had not yet formed. That was so offensive to the winner of the vote (Andrew Jackson, by a considerable margin) it served as the impetus that caused the Democratic party to form, and this was formed out of the side that was overridden, so in hindsight, it was still the Democrats who were overridden, they just hadn't set themselves apart by that party designation as yet.
No, they have not. [wikipedia.org] Ever since there has actually been a Democratic party, the EC's popular vote overrides have favored the Republicans.
Five times the EC has overridden the popular vote thus far.
In 1824, the first time this happened, it actually caused the creation of the Democratic party because Andrew Jackson, who received 152 thousand votes, lost (via the EC) to John Quincy Adams, who received 114 thousand votes — this was over a 10% win by popular vote which the EC threw in the trash in favor of the loser, Adams.
The other four times, the Republican, having lost the popular vote in each instance, was emplaced in the presidency over the Democrat who won the popular vote.
Certainly it is true that the Democratic party of those first few overrides was radically different from the Democratic party today; and so was the Republican party. From the issues of reconstruction to women's right to vote, the parties both maintained platforms that most people today would find radically offensive. So it's somewhat of a case of apples vs. oranges.
But in recent years, let's say post-Reagan, the sides have been pretty clear and consistent in terms of party positions and in these cases — as with those preceding them — it has been Republican-favoring overrides every time.
--
An apple a day keeps anyone away.
If you throw it hard enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2020, @10:51PM (1 child)
You were making an argument the voting system should be modified because, in your view, it favors your opposition. You can have a say as a voter, but you are not impartial so should not have a say on the voting rules.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by fyngyrz on Sunday July 19 2020, @01:53AM
I'm completely impartial WRT a candidate's party; I'm all about their positions and their history, and of course if the party has handed them wrongheaded positions, then the party will also figure into that, but not by name or "just because."
But when a candidate has the mind of a grade schooler, that's a perfectly valid reason to eschew them. Trump is feeble minded compared to a normal adult. You can't get around that. The man is flat-out incompetent to hold the position of the president of... well, anything, really. Much less this country. Likewise, when the candidate's history provides clear illustration of a failure to treat people with anything even remotely resembling a fair hand, that also is a well qualified reason to decide against them.
Your assertion that I'm not impartial in some disqualifying manner is ridiculous. To be impartial requires that the matters being considered are otherwise equal, and then the decision be made on the merits; I made, and am am making, such a decision — Trump is lacking in merit in so many concrete ways as to make the decision obvious, and this was the case prior to the votes being cast.
Those who decided otherwise are the ones who are not being impartial; because only a partial outlook towards an incompetent — ignoring racism, a truly reprehensible attitude towards women, abusive behavior towards the handicapped, lying to the press, etc. — could have allowed someone to vote for Trump.
Another factor was all the BS about Clinton; hardly perfect, but Benghazi, the "pizza shop", and so on? FFS, that was such utter nonsense. Yet people (and more importantly, the people in the EC) still voted for him and to this day, there are people here who rattle on about how bad a choice Clinton was compared to Trump. How absurd.
No one is impartial — or should be impartial — when faced with incompetence, evil, and abusive behavior. If I was impartial in such cases, then I'd be someone you couldn't trust with these matters.
You may have the last word, if you're so inclined. I'm done here.
--
When I dunk my cookies, I think of you.
I hold them under until the bubbles stop.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:56PM
The Electoral college was supposed to prevent the kind of incompetence that gave us this:
https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-two-different-pandemics-eu-vs-us-coronavirus-cases-spike-28-june [gzeromedia.com]
It failed spectacularly.
And before anyone says, "what makes you think anyone else would do better?" the answer is simple, nearly the entire world did better, almost every nation (Sweden might be an exception) handled this better than we did. Therefore, it stands to reason, that on average, anyone running for office was likely to do better than this guy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:01PM
How about somebody besides Clinton or Trump?
Why is this so difficult?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deadstick on Monday July 13 2020, @09:52PM
Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Religion: A large, popular cult.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday July 13 2020, @09:56PM (1 child)
I did the math one time (didn't save it anyplace where I can find it right now) and figured out that a candidate can theoretically get well over 90% of the popular vote and still lose the election. Figure out the minimum number of small states (population wise) that provide an electoral victory and win each of those states by 1 vote (this also assumed winner take all). The losing candidate can get every other vote available, it would not matter. Highly unlikely, but possible.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:08AM
Theoretically, all you need to do is figure out the minimum number of states that a candidate would have to carry to win. Assume that in those states, exactly one person voted, and they voted for that candidate. In all the other states, assumed 100% turnout and every vote was for the opposing candidate. In that case, someone could win with less than a couple dozen votes total, with tens of millions of votes for the opposing candidate. Theoretically, of course.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:23PM
"outright stupid, as they were in 2016"
You voted third party then?
Because that was really the only rational option in 2016. My guess guess is you were a year-of-the-beaver voter, based on your self rightous attitude. Great, good for you, you helped elect Trump. Much like BLM. They were (and currently are) huge contributors to the Trump campaign. Nothing encourages turnout on the right like beating the shit out of the elderly and setting buildings on fire. And crashing Bernies podium during the primary? Yeah, great effort BLM! WhooHoo! Keep it up!
BLM is Trumps greatest ally.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:03PM (1 child)
In the current day, the average voter may never find out the truth thanks to the media.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday July 14 2020, @07:14PM
Sure they can. They can do the homework themselves. It is harder.
Washington DC delenda est.