Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 13 2020, @04:23PM   Printer-friendly

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'


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @04:55PM (26 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Monday July 13 2020, @04:55PM (#1020447) Journal

    Honestly, if the EC was to be eliminated states should be given the opportunity to peacefully secede. Eliminating the EC is akin to a labor contract where you agree to X for $Y/hr. Eliminating the EC would be like discovering halfway through your contract, you are going to be paid $0.00/hr AND you have to do X because your coworkers voted for a new contract. The only way that would be OK would if you were free to say screw this job. If you can't, you're a slave.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Overrated=2, Underrated=1, Total=8
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @08:09PM (12 children)

    by Opportunist (5545) on Monday July 13 2020, @08:09PM (#1020638)

    You might want to explain how creating an indirection layer in the election process is akin to not being paid for work. Because I fail to see how that parallel makes sense.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:40PM (#1020664)

      Hemo. He used to make sense. Also used to be a Democrat, a liberal, and a functioning human being. But now the EU is Tyranny! Get off his Schengen Lawn!!

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @09:08PM (8 children)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Monday July 13 2020, @09:08PM (#1020692) Journal

      "An indirection layer" -- by that you mean the tool that convinced independent nations to join a union? Without the EC, the United States might be nothing more than NY, CT, MA, NJ, and PA. The states that joined later, did so with the understanding that they would have somewhat of a voice in the US, rather than none at all, which inventivized joining. How many of those states would have said "nah -- screw that -- we'll just keep 100% of our sovereignty if all you offer is zero back."

      Basically, you got the benefit of the bargain here -- Iowa doesn't blockade its border to the movement of meat and grain eastward for example -- and in return you want to get out of the price you agreed to, by force. That sort of thought is colonialist, imperialist, and in the end, bloody minded. The best way to start a civil war is to disenfranchise 49% of the population because 51% think being in the majority gives them a mandate from the gods and nobody else matters.

      • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @09:33PM (3 children)

        by Opportunist (5545) on Monday July 13 2020, @09:33PM (#1020720)

        How about we replace the electoral college by simply splitting the votes of a state based on the votes? You have X people in your state, your state has Y votes in the federal election, so for every X/Y votes you secure on your candidate he has one federal vote?

        It's exactly the same, without paying a bunch of useless spongers to do essentially nothing.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @07:18AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @07:18AM (#1021105)

          Sure, you figure out a fair way to solve x=3/2 such that x is an integer and 2x=3 and do the same for every odd number from 3 to 55 and we’ll get right on that.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:13PM (1 child)

            by Opportunist (5545) on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:13PM (#1021271)

            How about instead of putting all eggs in one basket to split the votes according to how the PEOPLE (you know, the subjects in the "we, the people" thing) vote? Why can't a state hand down one democrat and two republican (or the other way 'round) votes if this is what would represent best what the PEOPLE OF THIS STATE wanted?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:13PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:13PM (#1021314)

              Because, why would a president CARE about that state, if they are only going to get a 1 or 2 elector advantage there?

              You would need to have ALL states do that or the states that do just get screwed.

              It's classic game theory.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:46AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:46AM (#1020864)

        "An indirection layer" -- by that you mean the tool that convinced independent nations to join a union? Without the EC, the United States might be nothing more than NY, CT, MA, NJ, and PA. The states that joined later, did so with the understanding that they would have somewhat of a voice in the US, rather than none at all, which inventivized joining. How many of those states would have said "nah -- screw that -- we'll just keep 100% of our sovereignty if all you offer is zero back."

        You conveniently ignore that the 800lb gorilla back then was Virginia, with Massachussetts well behind it, followed by Pennsylvania. In fact, James Madison (the primary author of the Constitution) was a Virginian. As was Washington. And Jefferson.

        At the time, CT, NY and NJ were piddling little states by comparison.

        However, once they joined the United States (by ratifying the Constitution), they accepted that the Constitution was "the supreme law of the land." There was never any deception or skullduggery about it. It's right there in the text of the document.

        What they did do was *compromise*. Which was necessary then, and is certainly necessary now. Fortunately for us, they were willing to do so back then. Unfortunately for us, that seems to no longer be the case.

        The hallmark of a good compromise is one where no one is completely happy. That was certainly true back in 1789, and it's true now. The difference appears to be that today certain folks are unwilling to compromise. On anything.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:37AM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:37AM (#1021017) Journal
          So who is failing to compromise here? For example, the AC selling proportional voting for US President seems to be offering a very one-sided proposal.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:20AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:20AM (#1021079)

            So rebut the AC's proposal with something better. Engage in a discussion.

            Why are you whinging about it when you could be engaged in productive discussion?

            Sigh.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @11:53AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 14 2020, @11:53AM (#1021171) Journal

              So rebut the AC's proposal with something better.

              Like doing nothing? I'm surprised no one has reached the obvious conclusion of simply eliminating the Senate. What's the point of having two legislative bodies when you want to throw away the thing that made them different (well aside from longer election cycles)?

              Why are you whinging about it when you could be engaged in productive discussion?

              There's a huge futility here in any quest for productivity. What is to be produced by said productive discussion.

              Now, if we were to speak of eliminating first-past-the-post, we'd be onto something relatively productive.

    • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:16PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:16PM (#1021240)

      Basically, people with privilege hate to give it up. When someone in Wyoming hears that their vote will no longer count 20x as much as those dirty Californians, they get mad.

      The fact that the people in California already have no voice doesn't concern them as, "that's just the way it is supposed to be." It's not dissimilar to the justifications for slavery.

      • (Score: 2) by EEMac on Thursday July 16 2020, @02:34PM

        by EEMac (6423) on Thursday July 16 2020, @02:34PM (#1022408)

        the people in California already have no voice

        California has more votes [wikipedia.org] in the electoral college, and more seats [britannica.com] in the House of Representatives, than any other state in the Union.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:22PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:22PM (#1020710)

    Eliminating the EC would be like discovering halfway through your contract, you are going to be paid $0.00/hr AND you have to do X because your coworkers voted for a new contract. The only way that would be OK would if you were free to say screw this job. If you can't, you're a slave.

    I completely disagree. Getting rid of the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment. Doing so requires 2/3 majorities in the House and Senate (which is composed of representatives from *all* the states) and ratification by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

    As such, ratifying any constitutional amendment requires broad-based support from pretty much the entire nation.

    Which is why there's so much interest in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [wikipedia.org], as that only requires validation by state legislatures in enough states to have 270 electoral votes.

    You apparently don't understand how our system of government is organized. And that you have a '+5 Insightful' score on your comment shows that others don't understand such things either. More's the pity.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:31PM (#1020718)

      Thanks for that break down.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by EEMac on Monday July 13 2020, @11:33PM (1 child)

      by EEMac (6423) on Monday July 13 2020, @11:33PM (#1020826)

      Notice how the early adopters of the NPIC are (mostly) the states with the largest populations? They are *pissed off* that little states actually had an impact this last presidential election, and they want to make sure it doesn't happen again.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @11:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @11:43PM (#1020833)

        Notice how the early adopters of the NPIC are (mostly) the states with the largest populations? They are *pissed off* that little states actually had an impact this last presidential election, and they want to make sure it doesn't happen again.

        Except this is nothing new, so I'm not sure what you mean by "early adopters." The current idea was floated in 2001, long before the 2016 election. What's more, there have been various proposed amendments to abolish the electoral college [wikipedia.org] dating back 50 years or so.

        In fact, *majorities* of Americans supported getting rid of the electoral college since at least 1944. [wikipedia.org]

        You're either misinformed, ignorant (willfully or otherwise) or just a lying sack of shit. Which one is it?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday July 13 2020, @09:59PM (4 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday July 13 2020, @09:59PM (#1020753)

    ...if the EC was to be eliminated states should be given the opportunity to peacefully secede.

    I have been wondering if that is a conversation Americans ought to be having regardless.

    Not that it would be easy.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @11:52PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @11:52PM (#1020837)

      ...if the EC was to be eliminated states should be given the opportunity to peacefully secede.

      I have been wondering if that is a conversation Americans ought to be having regardless.

      Not that it would be easy.

      All that would do is to make the poorest states in the US into some of the poorest countries in the world. I'd note that *most* states that make noises about seceding (with the exception of Texas) are among the poorest places in the US -- with substantial Federal dollars flowing into them. If we were to allow those states to secede and take away those Federal subsidies, we'd have an *enormous* immigration issue, with ten or so more Mexico or Guatemala-like economies full of people clamoring to get into the US.

      What's more, many of those poorest states have pretty significant revenue from both investment from, and employment by the Federal government. Take away those jobs from the residents of those states, and the tax revenue from those jobs/investments to the state governments, and we've got a bunch of third-world economies.

      On a personal level, I really wouldn't care. But as an American, I believe in the Union, even if it means that more of my Federal tax dollars go to those poor states than to my own.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:35AM (2 children)

        by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:35AM (#1021015) Homepage

        Our states may be relatively poor, but we produce most of your food and fuel. And we wouldn't be a bunch of third-world countries, because we're not dumb enough to secede one by one; we'd still be the second largest country on this continent, while the remainers would be two separate coasts and a handful of chunks inland.

        A nice graphical representation, which also points up the dire necessity of the EC:

        https://vividmaps.com/trumpland-and-clinton-archipelago/ [vividmaps.com]

        But hey, anyone who wants to be totally ruled by California and New York, forever and ever, dump the EC. Just so long as you don't force the rest of us to join you.

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:15PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:15PM (#1021317)

          Those maps just show that Trump won big where people don't live.

          So what?

          • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday July 15 2020, @12:51AM

            by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday July 15 2020, @12:51AM (#1021589) Homepage

            No worries! so long as you in the Archipelago are self-sufficient.

            Wait, what? Getting hungry there in the dark??

            --
            And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:05AM (2 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:05AM (#1020879) Journal

    This...does not follow. At all. What happened to you? It looks like you just went plumb crazy about 2 months ago...

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2020, @08:20PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2020, @08:20PM (#1022084)

      He took the rightwing hysteria about "cancel culture" seriously, has not bothered to do a reality check, and has been radicalized into believing antifa are terrorists, BLM are the real racists, and cancel culture has made Democrats the new Nazi party.

      I've found out the key clue, any time someone says "I used to be a liberal" or "I'm a real liberal" you know they've been radicalized and are swallowing the rightwing propaganda that tells them they are the REAL defenders of freedom.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 16 2020, @12:39AM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday July 16 2020, @12:39AM (#1022172) Journal

        I wish I knew what makes supposedly intelligent people fall for such a stupid trick. Unfortunately, my suspicion is "they were never doing anything but shallow virtue-signalling in the first place, and this represents not a change of heart but an unwillingness to keep the disguise up any longer."

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:14PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:14PM (#1021212) Journal
    The interesting thing about the interstate compact is that it doesn't eliminate the EC. This is an inherent flaw of the EC approach (and voting systems in general).