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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:10PM (19 children)
So if I was a voter in a big state, it's right for your vote to count more than mine? Why?
Forget Donald Trump. Imagine any scenario in which some candidate wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote. How is that fair to the voters?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 13 2020, @05:35PM
They don't give a shit about fair...
As soon as winning by getting fewer votes benefits Democrats they'll try to disband the EC.
And I'll help them.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:44PM (2 children)
Just move to a small state and then you too can be completely ignored in the popular vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:36PM (1 child)
You are not ignored, your vote counts just as much as any other individuals. If you want to do something differently from the rest of the country you make it a state issue, and then it can go to the supreme court to decide if the federal or state level takes precedence.
Buncha ignorant selfish pricks you are. Woops, also fascist for wanting to force your minority opinion upon others like some entitled twat.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:16AM
You're really selling this with the "Mommy may I?" routine. It's ridiculous to use the US Supreme Court as a gatekeeper just because some part of the country wants to be a little different.
This compromise was agreed to way back when in order to have a country. Fatuous appeals to morality won't change that. And I can't help but notice the appeal is one-sided with no similar demands required of you. What are you willing to offer?
My take on this is that the vote weighting aspect of the Electoral College helps preserve political diversity as amply demonstrated by your first paragraph. We don't need the Supreme Court to nanny us. A related big problem is one-size-fits-all solutions. For example, minimum wage law is a classic example with some proponents going as far as to propose a minimum wage (such as $15 per hour in the mid 2010s) that would be aggressive for any urban area, much less the lower priced (and usually much poorer) rural areas. Gun control is another with rural areas having different risks and needs from urban areas.
(Score: 2, Troll) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @05:59PM (2 children)
Without the EC, there would be no US. You are jumping into this thing in the middle. Go to the beginning -- you would have ZERO say over what happens in Montana without the EC because Montana would not be part of the US at all. And you bitch about having a substantial but not 100% power over Montana?
Anyone who wants to abandon the EC, must in fairness provide for the peaceful voluntary secession of states. Otherwise you are just colonizing those less populous states and breaking treaties. Do you really want to be a colonizing treaty breaker??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:52PM
Montana, the eastern half, anyway, was part of the Louisiana Purchase, so if Tommy Jefferson had not gotten a "going out of business" deal from Napolean, Montana would be French. Mon Deiu! Or Piegan and Absarokee, and Shosone, and Salish. And Gros Ventre, and Cheyanne.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:53AM
"Do you really want to be a colonizing treaty breaker??"
Actually, I think that's *exactly* what the anti-EC forces want to be. They may frame it differently, but that's what it boils down to. "There's more of us than there are of you, so bend over."
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @06:29PM (11 children)
Why should your vote in a big state mean more than my vote in Wyoming? A big state already has more economic clout, more voting clout, more revenue from income taxes, more revenue from tourism, more businesses and infrastructure to attract even more businesses, and not to mention more name recognition. For every one person that says "Let's take a trip to Wyoming." 1000 people say "Let's take a trip to NYC/Miami/Cali/DC/..etc, etc.". Your one vote already counts for much more than my one vote.
The thing is no matter what system you use ~10 states control 50% of the vote. And in each of those 10 states one or two cities control 50% of the vote inside the state. EC gives the little communities in each state and give each little state a chance to occasionally to say "I am important".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @07:39PM (10 children)
Red states should stop being economically supported by Blue states.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @09:56PM
How many calories in a complicated mortgage backed security contract, and does it taste good?
Just maybe you get something out of this, or is it that you just want plantations of slaves?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:07PM (6 children)
and then the red states will shut off your food supply! The United States came together because it is mutually beneficial to do so. The Electoral College is one of the ways to help maintain that. The fact that the most populous states want to do away with it to decrease other states influence is the perfect example of why it shouldn't be done. If you want to 100% control your own destiny then secede from the union and see how that works out for you.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @11:36PM (5 children)
Last I heard California was one of the major bread baskets. Try again dipshit, now you're making me happy that corporate farms are taking over. Maybe you wither away in poverty until you realize why taxes and social safety nets are important.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:49AM (3 children)
Funny you call the OP a dipshit. Where does California get water to green the desert? A lot of it comes from the Colorado River basin and here's a fun fact, CA is downstream of that and thus easily cut off. Can you guess how much food would grow in SoCal in that case?
https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2020-06-18/southern-california-water-battle-imperial-colorado-river-boiling-point [latimes.com]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:02AM (2 children)
Not much since even tho about half of CA's ag uses pumped groundwater, that's become so expensive that if you're stuck with well water, the only remaining profitable crop is alfalfa.
BTW why am I on your foes list??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:16AM (1 child)
I have no idea. Remedied.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:04PM
Thanks. Y'all's become one of my fave reads here (and so many insightful posts in this thread) that I just couldn't imagine where we went wrong!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:57AM
No, California grows the most high-dollar produce, but you can't live on strawberries and oranges. Most of your calories and nutrients come from flyover country, even tho it's not worth nearly as much by the pound.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:00PM (1 child)
My understanding is that meme is mythological.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2020, @04:07AM
Well, you understand incorrectly.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-05-15/some-states-like-new-york-send-billions-more-to-federal-government-than-they-get-back [usnews.com]
https://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-states-federal-spending-pew-report.html [governing.com]
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/ [wallethub.com]
https://www.voanews.com/usa/all-about-america/which-us-states-get-more-they-give [voanews.com]
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2019/03/20/how-much-federal-funding-each-state-receives-government/39202299/ [usatoday.com]
https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/ [taxfoundation.org]
https://taxfoundation.org/clarifying-federal-taxes-paid-vs-spending-received-state-msnbc-host-cites-tax-foundation-study-story/ [taxfoundation.org]