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, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:10AM (1 child)
But, California and other populous states already enjoy that sort of "equality" in the House. The Senate isn't supposed to be just like the House.
No, California isn't being "smothered". That's some kind of talking point that you've picked up somewhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:17AM
We've already made the Senate more like the House. The seventeenth amendment did just that.
A legislature need not have two very distinctive chambers for the government to be a properly functioning democracy. New Zealand used to have a bicameral legislature but abolished its upper house decades ago. For that matter, Nebraska has a unicameral legislature. At the state level, the differences between the upper and lower houses are often in legislative powers, different term lengths, and differently sized districts. But the differences are less distinct than at the federal level. While the UK has a parliamentary system, the US legislature is modeled after the UK in many respects. However, the House of Lords has lifetime appointments but significantly less legislative power than the US Senate. That said, making the Senate representation proportional to the population wouldn't make it identical to the house for the reasons I stated in my prior comment.
In terms of the rights of "flyover" states, we're talking about geographic regions with boundaries that were influenced heavily by political disputes during the 19th century. For example, Dakota Territory was split into North and South Dakota before being admitted because the Republicans wanted to admit two states to get more representation in the Senate. State lines were essentially gerrymandered to exploit the disproportional representation in the Senate. In the case of South Dakota, much of the state actually belonged to the Sioux, so there were concerns about whether it was even viable as a state. The state was eventually opened up to settlers when the Sioux were coerced and deceived by George Crook into signing away their land. The Sioux were forced onto reservations against their wishes. The US attempted to disarm the Sioux, armed conflict broke out, and the result was the Wounded Knee Massacre.
So let's be clear. Preventing "flyover" states from being "smothered" really means preserving the gerrymandering of state lines from over a century ago because it's politically beneficial to your party in the present day. I'm all for insulating the Senate from the whims of voters in any particular election, something that is already done with the staggered six year terms. But your argument for the rights of "flyover" states isn't particularly meaningful when those states were drawn up for the sole purpose of gaining a political advantage in the Senate.