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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:46AM (3 children)
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)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:20AM (1 child)
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
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)?
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.