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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.