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: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday July 14 2020, @11:29AM (2 children)
Well, that's the thing about voting in any form of Democratic system, isn't it: the voters are generally expected to make choices if they participate. Even if, for some incomprehensible reason, they disagree with Farkus888.
While this is technically true, it is only true because the first time it happened, it was't a Republican or a Democrat, because the parties had not yet formed. That was so offensive to the winner of the vote (Andrew Jackson, by a considerable margin) it served as the impetus that caused the Democratic party to form, and this was formed out of the side that was overridden, so in hindsight, it was still the Democrats who were overridden, they just hadn't set themselves apart by that party designation as yet.
No, they have not. [wikipedia.org] Ever since there has actually been a Democratic party, the EC's popular vote overrides have favored the Republicans.
Five times the EC has overridden the popular vote thus far.
In 1824, the first time this happened, it actually caused the creation of the Democratic party because Andrew Jackson, who received 152 thousand votes, lost (via the EC) to John Quincy Adams, who received 114 thousand votes — this was over a 10% win by popular vote which the EC threw in the trash in favor of the loser, Adams.
The other four times, the Republican, having lost the popular vote in each instance, was emplaced in the presidency over the Democrat who won the popular vote.
Certainly it is true that the Democratic party of those first few overrides was radically different from the Democratic party today; and so was the Republican party. From the issues of reconstruction to women's right to vote, the parties both maintained platforms that most people today would find radically offensive. So it's somewhat of a case of apples vs. oranges.
But in recent years, let's say post-Reagan, the sides have been pretty clear and consistent in terms of party positions and in these cases — as with those preceding them — it has been Republican-favoring overrides every time.
--
An apple a day keeps anyone away.
If you throw it hard enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2020, @10:51PM (1 child)
You were making an argument the voting system should be modified because, in your view, it favors your opposition. You can have a say as a voter, but you are not impartial so should not have a say on the voting rules.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by fyngyrz on Sunday July 19 2020, @01:53AM
I'm completely impartial WRT a candidate's party; I'm all about their positions and their history, and of course if the party has handed them wrongheaded positions, then the party will also figure into that, but not by name or "just because."
But when a candidate has the mind of a grade schooler, that's a perfectly valid reason to eschew them. Trump is feeble minded compared to a normal adult. You can't get around that. The man is flat-out incompetent to hold the position of the president of... well, anything, really. Much less this country. Likewise, when the candidate's history provides clear illustration of a failure to treat people with anything even remotely resembling a fair hand, that also is a well qualified reason to decide against them.
Your assertion that I'm not impartial in some disqualifying manner is ridiculous. To be impartial requires that the matters being considered are otherwise equal, and then the decision be made on the merits; I made, and am am making, such a decision — Trump is lacking in merit in so many concrete ways as to make the decision obvious, and this was the case prior to the votes being cast.
Those who decided otherwise are the ones who are not being impartial; because only a partial outlook towards an incompetent — ignoring racism, a truly reprehensible attitude towards women, abusive behavior towards the handicapped, lying to the press, etc. — could have allowed someone to vote for Trump.
Another factor was all the BS about Clinton; hardly perfect, but Benghazi, the "pizza shop", and so on? FFS, that was such utter nonsense. Yet people (and more importantly, the people in the EC) still voted for him and to this day, there are people here who rattle on about how bad a choice Clinton was compared to Trump. How absurd.
No one is impartial — or should be impartial — when faced with incompetence, evil, and abusive behavior. If I was impartial in such cases, then I'd be someone you couldn't trust with these matters.
You may have the last word, if you're so inclined. I'm done here.
--
When I dunk my cookies, I think of you.
I hold them under until the bubbles stop.