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: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday July 13 2020, @09:59PM (4 children)
I have been wondering if that is a conversation Americans ought to be having regardless.
Not that it would be easy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @11:52PM (3 children)
All that would do is to make the poorest states in the US into some of the poorest countries in the world. I'd note that *most* states that make noises about seceding (with the exception of Texas) are among the poorest places in the US -- with substantial Federal dollars flowing into them. If we were to allow those states to secede and take away those Federal subsidies, we'd have an *enormous* immigration issue, with ten or so more Mexico or Guatemala-like economies full of people clamoring to get into the US.
What's more, many of those poorest states have pretty significant revenue from both investment from, and employment by the Federal government. Take away those jobs from the residents of those states, and the tax revenue from those jobs/investments to the state governments, and we've got a bunch of third-world economies.
On a personal level, I really wouldn't care. But as an American, I believe in the Union, even if it means that more of my Federal tax dollars go to those poor states than to my own.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:35AM (2 children)
Our states may be relatively poor, but we produce most of your food and fuel. And we wouldn't be a bunch of third-world countries, because we're not dumb enough to secede one by one; we'd still be the second largest country on this continent, while the remainers would be two separate coasts and a handful of chunks inland.
A nice graphical representation, which also points up the dire necessity of the EC:
https://vividmaps.com/trumpland-and-clinton-archipelago/ [vividmaps.com]
But hey, anyone who wants to be totally ruled by California and New York, forever and ever, dump the EC. Just so long as you don't force the rest of us to join you.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:15PM (1 child)
Those maps just show that Trump won big where people don't live.
So what?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday July 15 2020, @12:51AM
No worries! so long as you in the Archipelago are self-sufficient.
Wait, what? Getting hungry there in the dark??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.