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, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @08:03PM (3 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 13 2020, @08:03PM (#1020630) Journal

    So if the people in New York City were to take up more land, should their vote suddenly count more?

    Or are they just unimportant.

    We we have not is a system where a president can and does ignore the needs of 1/2 the country. You just don't like it to be your half.

    And neither party can seem to represent more people, and neither party can seem to put up a candidate who represents more people's interests.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=2, Overrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday July 13 2020, @08:43PM (2 children)

    by Freeman (732) on Monday July 13 2020, @08:43PM (#1020668) Journal

    What I'm saying is that the electoral college vote is designed to give equity to the system, not equality. Otherwise, if each state was equal, there would be an even greater disparity of the vote. While a system where 1 vote = 1 vote, would lend itself to only focusing on the issues that matter to a few cities in the entire country, essentially neutering the vote of the entire rest of the country. That coming from a person from one of the largest and most populous states.

    --
    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, @09:06PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 13 2020, @09:06PM (#1020691) Journal

      I'm in a red flyover state, yet making arguments against the E.C., Trump, etc.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:47PM (#1021413)

        Maybe they should just go back to the 1 EC per X people +2EC for a state, instead of capping the total number of people in the EC. They capped the House because it was just getting too big, but that isn't really an issue with the EC is it?

        Have the EC votes follow the number originally prescribed in the constitution, while still capping the House.