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 kazzie on Monday July 13 2020, @06:27PM (30 children)
TMB, could you elucidate on that a bit for me? As an outsider, I see the electoral college making sense when the speed of travel and communication was slow, but I think you're hinting at something else here.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Monday July 13 2020, @07:43PM (29 children)
I thought he was pretty clear. His premise is that the states are supposed to be effectively sovereign states. The federal government is supposed to be a 'league of nations' construct, aka a so-called 'united states' the president of the 'united states' is supposed to be elected by the member-states, not by direct voting of the citizens of the member states. In this united states each state determines for itself how it wants to cast its it vote for president and runs its own elections. The EC makes decent sense in a 'united states is a league of sovereign countries' context.
One could even argue giving each state 1 vote would also be pretty reasonable in this context; it would even be reasonable in that system for each governor to simply pick a candidate and send their vote to DC. In that system, citizens very indirectly would have a say in the president by selecting the state governor; loosely like how the UN Secretary General is selected.
The point is, if you think of the USA as "united states" then the idea of citizens directly selecting the leader via popular vote is almost ridiculous; on par with approving the north american free trade agreement by simply having a direct referendum counting votes from all citizens of canada, the states, and mexico -- you of course need each country to sign on. Getting a simple majority of citizens from the 3 sovereign countries is... absurd.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @09:52PM (24 children)
This is a great post. I think some of the issue is that in the United States, which is one nation with a number of specific states, we forget that in international law the concept of state is the same as the concept of country and that the current conception of a "US state", uses a diminished sense of the word state unfortunately without using a different word. When the Constitution was ratified, it was very much an agreement between separate wholly sovereign entities, not some mere agreement between what in the US, we now conceive of as states (in the diminished sovereignty sense).
This I think is the fundamental issue the anti-EC crowd ignores. Without the EC, it is likely the US would not exist as it does. If we are to talk about eliminating the EC, maybe it's time to have a discussion about peaceful withdrawal, but to destroy the EC without that discussion is an expression of extreme violence because at the root of it, the anti-EC people are talking about enforcing laws on unwilling states (which may be seen as diminished by some, undiminished by others). At the root of that is the pure unadulterated power of weaponry and a willingness to use those weapons against opposition. It is in this way that the anti-EC crowd is monstrous -- right now it is the monstrosity of smug "we know better than you" attitudes, but under that, is the monstrosity of bloodshed for those who don't comply, or crushing submission by those who will.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday July 13 2020, @10:54PM (19 children)
No-one is suggesting violence to enforce anything.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @11:22PM (18 children)
Eliminating the EC without a Constitutional amendment can only be accomplished through violence. There are two broad categories of ways to get people to do what you want -- agreement and force. By circumventing the agreement method (Constitutional Amendment) and doing some Constitution underminingl workaround (Interstate Compact) you necessarily rely on the force method.
Let's say there is an election in which the EC would have elected on person, but the Interstate Compact elects another. What are you going to do if States not part of the compact refuse to accept the election, refuse to accept Federal power, refuse to pay taxes or take federal money, and throw up barriers across the interstate freeways at their borders? You are either going to accept that secession or send in the troops. The troops will secure either military victory (or loss) or submission of the populace by threat of force. That's violence and eliminating the EC without agreement is at it's core, an exercise in brute-force-barrel-of-the-gun power and compliance. To even suggest eliminating the EC without the correct amendment procedure, is threaten such force.
You need to understand this or you won't understand why the consequences of your desire are so high.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:14AM (7 children)
Are you sure that's true? It seems awfully unimaginative to me, but you might be right.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:32AM (6 children)
Governance is either by agreement or coercion. Coercion is violence (*), otherwise it isn't coercion -- it's asking. Right now, we can see that many are not agreeing with the current governing model and cities burn. If these groups take power, there will be others who oppose them and did not agree, and again, cities will burn. Our system is incredibly fragile.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:23AM (5 children)
That's a shame.
So there's no other way then?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:41AM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:48AM (3 children)
That's what I'm wondering.
I don't see why there has to be violence, but hemocyanin seems to think its inevitable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:15PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 14 2020, @08:12PM
I had to look up the Interstate Compact, and yes, that seems to be the way to do it.
Better that killing each other too, I would have thought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2020, @08:57PM
There has to be violence because the groups wanting to abolish the EC are doing it by forcing the change on others without their consent. That is an attack. They could fix their problems fully internally by splitting themselves up into multiple smaller states so that each person within the new states has the same 'voting power' as the less popular states. That would be a peaceful way to get the same result that their populations are complaining for without causing undo harm on any existing states. However they're not complicating that solution because it'll reduce their collective power as single, larger states. That shows you their true goals. They don't want equality, they want the power to impose their will on others and that only happens when they're one of the largest states rather than redefining themselves to be a bunch of same-sized states. They're the ones who picked the path of violence, forcing others to bend to their will instead of changing their own identity.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:10AM
If this happens, all it means is Lincoln should have given the Southern traitors what they deserved: burned the place to the ground, salted the ashes, downed half a cask of ale, and taken a Presidential piss of Noachide proportions on said salty ashes.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:40AM (2 children)
You're leaving out an important step here. The courts.
Assuming the NVPIC [wikipedia.org] gains legislative approval from enough states to guarantee the election of the popular vote winner *ever* happens, about nineteen seconds later dozens of lawsuits will be filed trying to invalidate such an arrangement.
And it's not clear that such an agreement/compact is even constitutional [wikipedia.org].
It's entirely possible that SCOTUS could rule such an agreement unconstitutional for a variety of reasons.
After that, what sort of "force" are you talking about? Reg'lar army folks occupying statehouses until they ratify an amendment? SEAL teams assaulting Governor's mansions? Or maybe just FBI? You've got some imagination there friend.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:06PM (1 child)
All they need is consent of Congress to get past that obstacle (or a favorable Supreme Court line up). Given that Congress hasn't protested the agreement now despite the progress made for over a decade (sounds like they're up to 15 states), that's a strong demonstration of consent.
And of course, they could just do it anyway. Supreme Court has limited power to enforce.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:06PM
Yeah. That's the law. If Congress says it's okay, then it's okay. That's neither illegal or some sort of trick/fraud. It's right there in the Constitution.
If SCOTUS says they don't need Congress' approval, that's not illegal or a trick/fraud either.
This is how our system works. And it's been that way since 1789 and 1804, respectively.
If anyone doesn't like it, they can try to change the constitution with an amendment, as we've done 27 times over the years.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @11:58AM (2 children)
Why would that happen? The Interstate Compact despite its flaws distributes votes in the EC (the states after all have considerable freedom in how they vote in the EC). There's no opportunity for such a difference to occur.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 14 2020, @05:52PM (1 child)
People can do the math and figure out they were had. If that was to occur I expect nothing peaceful to result.
There is a way to amend the Constitution -- gutting it with slimy workarounds has been the order of the day for some time, but mostly in areas where most people don't feel the effects, such as with the 2A and 4A. If there was an election in which the vote totals under the EC would elect Trump but the totals under the IC would elect Biden, and either takes office, I would expect a shooting war. One side considers the other literal nazis and the other side considers the other literal Maos. At that point there really is no path to resolution by agreement.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @10:23PM
They can then overturn the Interstate Compact in the usual way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:13PM (1 child)
As with most things Federal, the law is what Congress says it is, and/or it's what SCOTUS interprets it to be.
As is clearly stated in the Constitution, it's the supreme law of the land. Full stop.
Should the bizzaro world scenario you're fantasizing about actually come to pass (fat chance!), then those responsible for the civil unrest will be arrested and prosecuted.
It's a great fantasy. And you even get to use your AR-15 on Gub'mint folk. That's gotta get your cock hard, huh? How many times have you masturbated to that particular fantasy?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 14 2020, @05:58PM
I think Portland and Seattle are prime examples of the fact that those creating civil unrest and devastation to public and private property, will not necessarily face consequences. Whether there are consequences will depend wholly on whether local government is aligned with your insurrection. This creates a "one law for me, one law for thee" situation which is inherently unstable.
I have no fantasies about what may come. It will be horrific whether the regressive left's authoritarian proclivities win by acquiescence because authoritarian governments are always evil and bloody, or we end up civil war, which are always evil and bloody.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday July 16 2020, @12:14AM
"What are you going to do if States not part of the compact refuse to accept the election, refuse to accept Federal power, refuse to pay taxes or take federal money, and throw up barriers across the interstate freeways at their borders? You are either going to accept that secession or send in the troops."
Lighten up Francis.
"What are you going to do if States that **ARE** part of the compact refuse to accept the election, refuse to accept Federal power, refuse to pay taxes or take federal money, and throw up barriers across the interstate freeways at their borders? You are either going to accept that secession or send in the troops."
"To even suggest that the Interstate Compact won't be allowed, is to threaten such force."
It cuts both ways equally. And there's nothing special about the EC either. A group of states could unilaterally secede over literally anything at any time.. a supreme court ruling they don't like, an obnoxious tweet from the cheeto in charge, even a duly and properly passed constitutional amendment -- just because you did it by the books doesn't mean a group of states can't decide to throw barricades on the highway and secede over it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @11:58PM (3 children)
That diminishment of state power was understood and agreed to by those who ratified the constitution in 1789. It's right there in the the text: that the Constitutions is "...the supreme law of the land."
We tried the "League of Nations" style national government. That was the Articles of Confederation [wikipedia.org]. It didn't work well. At all. Which is why we replaced it.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:34AM (2 children)
Right -- I don't understand why you think that is contradicting me. The states accepted diminishment in exchange for a system where low population states still had a voice. Without that say, those states would not have accepted diminishment. It is a fundamentally fraudulent dealing to trick a party into agreement under a specific set of terms, and then change those terms on the party later and say "haha, so sad, suck it up buttercup." Super slimy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @05:10AM (1 child)
Again, I heartily disagree.
As I pointed out [soylentnews.org] in response to one of your other comments [soylentnews.org]:
That mechanism (amending the constitution) is also explicitly defined in the Constitution as ratified by every single state, both those that were extant at its implementation, and all the other states as they joined the union.
Each and every state has ratified the constitution that includes the amendment process. No one has been tricked, duped or defrauded. If a state was uncomfortable with, or objected to, the amendment process, they certainly did not have to ratify it.
As such, claiming that using said process is somehow "a fundamentally fraudulent dealing to trick a party into agreement" is ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst. Which is it, then?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:00PM
Amending the constitution is not fraudulent.
Constitution gutting workarounds like the interstate compact are. If you don't want the EC, do it the legit route. Everything else is slimy and dangerous.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Monday July 13 2020, @10:06PM (2 children)
The problem is that this heavily "states first" idea is a proven failure. Think back to the Articles of Confederation and the Confederacy. What you end up with is large portions of the nation refusing to act for the benefit of the whole (although we seem to be slipping back towards this) even when failing to do so dooms them in the long run.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 15 2020, @09:49AM (1 child)
That's only a failure if your aim is to control everyone and make them do as you think they should. That, my friend, is the opposite of liberty. So you can kind of see why nobody much wanted that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday July 16 2020, @10:10PM
The failure usually shows most in disaster response. Instead of a coordinated response (sending Johnston enough troops to stop Grant in the west, for instance) that can stop* a problem early, responses end up being piecemeal, each state responding on its own, with the usual result that none of them succeed.
*OK, the south was never going to win the war, their hope was to make victory for the Union so costly that they would essentially give up and allow the Confederacy to exist. They lost all hope of that when they blew it in the west, and they blew it mostly because they had no government capability to coordinate a response.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Tuesday July 14 2020, @11:27AM
Thanks. That "League of Nations" concept is what slipped by me.