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, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Monday July 13 2020, @05:45PM (3 children)
you have less population, you DESERVE less influence!
well, duh.
why should you have as much as large states?
the system is broken. your concerns have been noted. and rejected. have a nice day.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Monday July 13 2020, @07:59PM (2 children)
Define large state. Generally, that means say Texas, vs Rhode Island. What about Texas vs New York? The whole idea is to be equitable, not equal. Otherwise, you either have candidates focusing only on large population centers, or tiny states like Rhode Island that have the same say as a very populous state like New York or a very large and very populous state like Texas.
You don't want a tiny population+size state to have the same say as a large+populous state like Texas/California. Yet, you also, don't want it to be strictly based on population, because otherwise, you will have large population centers that matter and literally every other place, is of no consequence.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @08:05PM (1 child)
I wonder what would happen if E.C. were reorganized so that number of votes a state has was tied to a state's economic output?
Just hypothetically.
Wondering.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @08:15PM
Mmm... per capita or in total? Because if the former, D.C. would basically simply ignore what's going on in the rest of the country.
Otherwise you'd have California and Texas duking it out, with New York and Florida as their respective partners and the rest of the states basically sitting on the sideline and doing cheerleading duty.