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: 0, Interesting) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday July 13 2020, @05:03PM (4 children)
Does not matter who anyone votes for if no citizens have privacy or right to assemble.
As of now any individual can be targeted and harassed without any due process, any organization can be infiltrated and taken over by the FBI.
This is late stage empire, the patrician class moves swarms of plebians at its whim using rhetorical tricks on homogenous mass media.
A hundred years from now they will ask how everyone was controlled so easily, then my books and life story will be in much higher demand, because no one is going to believe you were so easily herded into such stupidity as the present by mere websites. You could take this as a compliment, but I dont advise it, people looking for a better explanation for your profound ignorance is not flattering.
No one believes in either political party, everyone either votes out of hatred of the other guy or some other cynicism, so even from one of the good justices this is rich.
"The people" are repressed by a police state they hardly can fathom, much less face the truth of what they have been cheering for, and that for all of their statues and fanfare, they can only claim to be marginally better than china, but not good by any standard.
"we are marginally better than china! don't whistle blow on our atrocities or we will shoot you in the back! epstein is with your daughter right now!" - tepid rallying cry heard as the 10th mountain airborne ranger division engages the enemy in venezuela(or nevada after the invasion...)
https://archive.ph/T95pm [archive.ph] probable cause
https://archive.is/Eu1Z4 [archive.is] incite civil war
https://archive.is/YkJr8 [archive.is] zersetzung
https://archive.is/TmRS6 [archive.is] trafficking
https://archive.is/UUt9W [archive.is] phone phetish
https://archive.is/jkjA6 [archive.is] history, rewritten, for the empire
https://archive.is/ZinJT [archive.is] qrd of last 50 years
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:05PM
WTF did you just say about my mother, bitch?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @05:16PM (2 children)
I think the right to assemble is as important as the right to repair.
The former should be done once the number of sick people decline, due to getting the spread of a disease under control.
The latter can be done in small groups or even alone.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday July 13 2020, @05:36PM (1 child)
TPTB now have the power to make it so the number of sick never decline
so they have absolute power, and apparently, your absolute trust.
you thought you were getting free tv shows but you paid for them with your mind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:24PM
You spew a lot of noise, but this is high fidelity signal.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Monday July 13 2020, @05:11PM (9 children)
The real point of the Electoral College was an attempt to avoid making the President a popularity contest. It was somewhat the same idea for the Senate, which was also originally not directly elected.
Direct democracy works here in Switzerland, but it works because we are small, and at 8 million the cracks are starting to show. At around 300 million, direct democracy makes no sense, zero, nada. The country is too diverse, different regions have different priorities. If anything, the US should be moving to be less a democracy and more of a republic.
Power to the people? Yes, absolutely: divest the federal government of power and give more power back to the individual States - closer to the people being governed. Won't happen, of course - federal politicians will never give up that power. But it would be the right move.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:20PM (1 child)
Well stated. Also, cheers for taking an academic and informative tone rather than trying to tell another nation how stupid they are for not doing things the way you think they should.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:14PM
Oh, Great! The American ex-pat in Switzerland, and the off-res Tribal member agree on the configuration of the United States, because no one should tell other nations what to do? And they are worried about being called stupid? Oh, deplorable!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:31PM (6 children)
It's still a popularity contest, it's just that the votes from the people in less populous states are given more weight. No other difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:40PM (5 children)
Have we gone so far that what he is saying is literally unintelligible to some? The idea of the United States was to have basically 50 small nations able to cooperate together and come together as necessary. It was not to have some monstrous behemoth of a federal government dominating the rest of the country. The president in most cases would be less relevant than your state governor.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 13 2020, @08:03PM (3 children)
The original idea of the US was to have basically 13 small nations able to cooperate together and come together as necessary. That got thrown out the window very quickly, because it turned out that those 13 small nations were unable to cooperate together under the Articles of Confederation: All 13 small nations wanted benefits, but none of them wanted to pay for it, so they didn't.
That's when they decided to form the Constitution and a new federal government, which specifically said that no, they weren't small nations, and couldn't do a lot of the things nations did like have an army or negotiate with foreign governments.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @11:04PM (2 children)
Dude, I'm not American and I know your history better than you. The only Federal force was supposed to be the navy. The national guards are the armies of the states, and the Federation was prohibited from funding an army for a period of more than two years. That's still in the Constitution and is why they have to pass massive military funding bills so often.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:03PM (1 child)
IIRC the U.S. didn't maintain a standing army until after WW1. It's a fairly recent thing, historically speaking.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2020, @04:14AM
I think technically they still don't. It has to be re-authorized by Congress every two years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:47PM
Which is exactly the case. As has been shown time and time again throughout this pandemic. The president makes ridiculous statements and does very little, while state governments are left to their own devices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:20PM (18 children)
Electoral college or not, house, senate, president, none of this matters much when 60% of voters don't even bother to get off their lazy asses and vote.
Fix that problem first. Then you can worry about technicalities like the electoral college.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 13 2020, @05:22PM (6 children)
That isn't a problem. You have no right to force people to say they give a shit when they don't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @06:51PM (1 child)
i never said, or even hinted at forcing anyone to vote. Funny you chose to interpret my post this way.
But when a free, democratic (republic) nation has more than half its population not even bother to vote, there's definately something wrong. Maybe 60% of the population is illegal aliens, but more seriously, maybe they believe their vote doesn't make a difference, maybe they approve none of the candidates, maybe they take freedom for granted because they have never experienced tyranny, war and bloodshed, maybe they're uneducated and fail to learn the lessons of a history they know too little about.
Whatever the reason, it's a sign that something is wrong socially, culturally, and/or economically with that society. There will always be anarchists and libertarians who will question the very principle of democracy and governement, or sociopaths who just don't give a shit. But those can't possibly explain a voting participation of only 40%, especially since participation is well above 50% in every developped democratic nation except the U.S.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Monday July 13 2020, @11:26PM
But, but, but .... The US has more guns.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 13 2020, @07:55PM (3 children)
Mandatory voting might not be bad if it were easy enough for people to indicate that they want to abstain from voting.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:51PM
I'm inclined to support mandatory voting, but only on conditions. First is strong voter ID laws (which, to forestall the usual bitching, should include free state IDs for voting after verifying eligibility). Second is that all ballots must include NOTA (None Of The Above) as an option, and if none of the candidates can beat the NOTA vote count, the post either stays empty or requires a new election with different candidates. Cause I can tell you NOTA would have won the 2016 presidential election, hardly anyone I know was voting _for_ anyone that election, it was mostly _against_.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @11:18AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:24PM
This creates an arms race whereby all sorts of methods, legal and illegal are employed just to pad and suppress votes for president. Given that the two major parties already burn well over a billion dollars (probably will be over two billion dollars in 2020) on an election cycle, that indicates the stakes are already huge enough to justify a lot of these games. And the most corrupt regions will have the greatest marketable ability to change an election.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @05:27PM (9 children)
To fix that problem, you first have to address the problem that for most voters, their vote doesn't even matter. If you live in a country that is deeply entrenched on either side, why bother going to the election at all?
(Score: 4, Informative) by choose another one on Monday July 13 2020, @05:44PM (8 children)
Can (relatively) easily be fixed - make voting mandatory.
Aussie turnout >90%.
No, not 100%, but there will always be some awkward sods (even in Aus) and protesters, but they usually only get a small fine.
With turnout >90% there is much less potential for argument that the nation didn't get what it voted for.
Pretty sure Aussies who don't really want to vote are still free to spoil their ballots or write "none of the above" or various descriptive expletives.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @08:04PM (6 children)
How does this address that it's pointless to go to the election? You only add forcing people to waste their time to knowing it's a waste of time. Yes, it wouldn't be as blatant anymore that people know their "right to vote" is essentially just an elaborate wanking session with zero meaning, but it would only apply a nice paint of coat for the turd.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday July 13 2020, @09:01PM (5 children)
I think it would work OK if you also had the choice of "None of the above".
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 13 2020, @09:31PM (4 children)
And what the hell should that accomplish? If I wanted to be ignored, I can get that with less effort.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:27PM (3 children)
In the event, that someone doesn't win the majority of electoral votes, congress decides.
https://www.usa.gov/election [usa.gov]
So, given a None of the above option and it actually meant something. The election might get kicked back to congress, who would then decide who gets to be president and vice president.
Do you trust congress to make a better choice for who should be President + Vice President?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Touché) by Opportunist on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:15PM (2 children)
Great. So my choice is essentially between electing a crook, electing a moron or leting a bunch of crooks and morons choose between them.
Let's say I'm not entirely sold on your idea.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:42PM (1 child)
Only way to fix it is at the city and state level. Stop voting in crooks and morons to city hall, to mayor, and to governor. Then/simultaneously, stop voting in crooks and morons to the house and senate.
The only way to fix the government is from the ground up, you're not going to magically get a better president, and keep everything else the same.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:48PM
You are aware that the system pretty much ensures that there is no chance for a honest man to get elected for any relevant office, yes?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:58PM
You would have to (well, not *have to*, but it would be really stupid not to, in my opinion) add a "none of the above" option to the ballot if you started requiring universal voting in the U.S.
The thing is, in our current system, if you aren't informed enough/don't want to make a decision, nobody is forcing you to. Requiring everybody to vote without adding "none of these idiots" to the ballot just muddies the vote up further, by introducing a lot of arbitrary votes to the mix.
I assume you're referring to that concept of "popular mandate" here. Would be interesting to see whether universal voting significantly changed what the balance came out as. When the majority is only 51% of the voters, that still means the other 49% aren't being represented; it's just that nobody has come up with a better system so far (although that ties into our 2-party system vs parliamentarianism too).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Monday July 13 2020, @09:41PM
Can't blame people for abstaining when they're offered a choice between manure and excrement from two parties with long histories of broken promises and blatant corruption.
(Score: -1, Troll) by hemocyanin on Monday July 13 2020, @05:40PM
We see the authoritarian nature of the regressive left in regards to speech it finds repugnant -- for example, a minority worker when he attempts to appease a leftist road rager: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/ [theatlantic.com]
We see the authoritarian left's regard for the property of others, irregardless of whether it hurts people they claim to help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvNY2qesMc [youtube.com]
We see the way the authoritarian left is attempting to destroy science, a way of knowing that is validated by its results -- nobody ever prayed or drum-circled their way to the moon: https://financialpost.com/opinion/apocalyptic-science-how-the-west-is-destroying-itself [financialpost.com]
We see the authoritarian left's regard for history: https://globalnews.ca/news/7101452/madison-wisconsin-hans-christian-heg/ [globalnews.ca]
We see the way the authoritarian left adjacent democrats abuse civil liberties and Democrats cheer as hard as, or harder than, 2001-Republicans cheered "if you aren't with us you're against us" and Bush signed the PATRIOT Act -- these people are same coin/different side authoritarians: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/democrats-have-abandoned-civil-liberties [substack.com]
We see exactly what the authoritarian left's police would look like -- gunning down unarmed black kids based on mere suppositions: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8471219/One-man-dead-wounded-Seattle-CHOP-zone-shooting.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Note that the above linked story is an example of how the authoritarian left views the press as a place to lie and generate narrative. You can tell the CHAZ people are lying because in the video of the shooting, the kids, they were not shooting, all the shooting was from CHAZ rifles (you can tell this if you are familiar with the sound of gunfire) and the shooting started before the jeep crashes, not after -- this is a key detail because it makes the CHAZ people the initial aggressors in this incident (even if there was an incident 30 minutes before where the kids were initial aggressors -- not proven BTW, but just assuming -- this is still a second fight and CHAZ did murder under traditional self-defense legal analysis). You can also hear a CHAZ-cop walk up to the car and say "oh you're still alive? Want to get pistol whipped" and then there is a small pop, quieter than the rifle shots from just prior, as if the CHAZ-cop is delivering a coup de grace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRNOlkNY1F8 [youtube.com]
We understand exactly why the authoritarian left wants to destroy the EC so much. It wants to destroy everything good along with what is bad, and reshape this land into something terrifying and ugly. If they prevail, there will be killing fields.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:45PM
total noob here.
but methinks your commander in chief, boss of army, is here to protect your borders.
as far a i can tell you have one passport for the whole country and "one" army to protect your country.
so if y'all vote for a "army boss" each and every vote of each 'murikan must count the same.
it's not like the "army boss" has much to do about "if it's okay to dam up this or that creek" and how high a building can be. this will probably be a mission for a local boss.
and anyways democracy should be most direct as possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @05:53PM
The constitution is silent on whether members of the electoral college have free choice on whom to vote for, but clear that it is the states that choose how the president gets elected.
If the states can bind electors to vote according to the popular vote, then why appoint electors at all? Let the state publish a weighted ballot (either under the winner take all system, or better proportionally assigned) which then get tabulated.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by donkeyhotay on Monday July 13 2020, @06:09PM (14 children)
It only seems like a bad idea to urbanites who have no idea where their food, water and energy come from. The Electoral College assures that people who do not live in highly populated areas, have some say in how their government is run. Without the electoral college, the presidential election would be decided by a small number of city-states who would treat rural people as irrelevant serfs.
(Score: 4, Touché) by cmdrklarg on Monday July 13 2020, @07:51PM (13 children)
What makes the rural people so special that they need a louder megaphone than the city folk?
The EC is only used in picking the POTUS; that's it, nothing more. And I have news for you: the asshole the rural people picked isn't one of them, nor does he care one iota about them past how easily he bullshitted them to get their votes.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by donkeyhotay on Monday July 13 2020, @09:38PM (8 children)
You actually just made my point for me. Rural people opted for our current disaster because urbanites don't care about them -- even though urbanites are dependent upon them for food, energy, water and other resources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:16PM (5 children)
That is not true at all.
What urbanites don't like about the ruralies is their insistence on dictating morality for everyone else while simultaneously giving handouts the the super rich decade after decade.
You did it to yourselves, the policies that hurt you are the pro-corporate policies mostly pushed by the GOP. Any community focused measures are blocked by the same GOP assholes and sold to you suckers as "fighting the eeebuhlll communists" woops I mean "socialists" woops I mean "liberals."
I am personally so incredibly sick of the selfish ignorant projection by conservatives that want to blame anyone but themselves for their lot in life. It is the most hypocritical nonsense I've ever seen and it is fueled by hatred and anger. The only redeeming factor is that you're being manipulated by conservative oligarchs, and that is a small redemption indeed.
Think for yourself some time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by donkeyhotay on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:48AM (4 children)
Whoa! Why do you keep saying "you" and "your"? I'm not a Republican. And I'm not rural, though I did grow up in a rural area, so perhaps I have a better understanding of rural voters. And I'm not particularly conservative, though I might be on some issues. I'm just analyzing the situation. And if your attitude is indicative, then my hypothesis has merit. The electoral college encourages the candidates and their parties to work for their votes, rather than just allowing two or three urban centers to rubber stamp a candidate into the presidency.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:56AM (3 children)
"Why do you keep saying "you" and "your"? I'm not a Republican."
Because you were sounding like one. My attitude has nothing to do with your hypothesis, and the idea that "two or three urban centers" would control political discourse completely is a massive failure in logic, common sense, and facts. Even California has a massive conservative base, and while cities tend to be more liberal throughout all of history they are much more mixed than your hysteria is pretending.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:42PM (2 children)
The urbanites do the same thing, right up to giving handouts to the super rich decade after decade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2020, @08:31PM (1 child)
Nah you're just a feckless nitwit!
My "mistake" if you will was simply assuming he was represetative of the arguments he was making. Totally fine if he was being objective, doesn't change my points at all except for changing "you" to "them."
I do like seeing you break your facade of objective facts, lets people see a little more clearly how full of shit you really are. All that spite was lurking but you kept a tight lid on it, I guess Trump's tumbling house of cards has thrown you off your game.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 15 2020, @09:37PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:54AM
So...You decided to cut off your nose to spite your face? [wikipedia.org] How adult of you. You sowed the wind [wiktionary.org] and are now reaping the whirlwind.
You go, girlfriend!
(Score: 2, Disagree) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:23PM
No, I really didn't make your point for you. You want to blame the city folk for rural voter's stupidity in voting the orange asshole to be POTUS.
Most voted for him because he had an (R) after his name on the ballot, or they fell for the GOP mudslinging campaign against HRC. Blaming city people for that stupidity is not helpful.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:31AM (3 children)
Like everyone, you are jumping in at the midpoint, not the start.
States with small populations would not have agreed to the Union unless they knew they would have some say in that Union. Without the EC, the United States might be just NY, CT, MA, RI, NJ and PA, plus a number of other regional unions, because there would be no reason for sovereign states to relinquish their sovereignty for nothing.
What you propose by eliminating the EC without going through the correct process to amend the Constitution, is to deprive states of the benefit of the bargain made with the more populous states. To unconstitutionally destroy the EC would make you and your kind treaty, you would turn low population states essentially into mere colonies (that makes you an imperialist) whose sole purpose is to produce goods for your consumption but who have no representation in government (slaves on a plantation).
I guess the question comes down to whether your moral system condones being a treaty breaking imperialist slave driving plantation owner. If yes, you are not a good person. If no, quit bitching and go through the Constitutional process required to eliminate the EC.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:44AM
Change in 3d paragraph, "your kind treaty" to "your kind treaty breakers".
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:26PM
Actually I'm not advocating the abolishing of the EC. I don't know of a good way to change it, but I do think it needs to be there.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by donkeyhotay on Tuesday July 14 2020, @09:08PM
Your post, hemocyanin, does a good job explaining what I was trying to argue in the OP. In fact, the low-population states are already treated as colonies to some extent as it is.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Monday July 13 2020, @06:15PM (2 children)
If you think sectionalism is bad now, just wait until LA, New York, Chicago and perhaps a few other big cities are the only places that really decide who the president is.
The EC isn't like it is because of some antiquated thing about electors riding to DC in wagons. It's there to prevent sectionalism. Same deal with the Senate. We're not supposed to have a democracy. It's a republic, for very valid reasons.
Whenever this comes up, I feel like people just weren't paying attention in civics classes.
As it stands, these remedies failed to prevent our first civil war for a variety of reasons. They may have *delayed* it, and allowed the notion of a cohesive union to stay in place long enough for it to be worth defending.
If we dismantle the republic in this way, it has a good chance to accelerate a possible 2nd civil war. If you think "flyover country" is unhappy now, just wait until it's democrat after democrat and they feel like they have no voice. So you say, "there aren't as many people there, so that's democracy". Democracy, as they say, is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:42AM
It's also worth noting, the "majority" so often touted is a mere couple percentage points. 152m against 148m is basically even odds in a civil war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:49PM
"Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the other ones"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @06:47PM (6 children)
Without the Electoral College, Presidential candidates would only need to sway and campaign in a few, highly populated areas and states. The Electoral College ensures that a prospective Presidential Candidate has to make broad appeals to a wide range of the populace. I think that's a very valuable thing, and generally ensures that Presidents are a better reflection of the broader American culture, not just Urban centers.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Monday July 13 2020, @07:29PM (1 child)
So you believe in minority rule? the small number of people in smaller states dictating to the larger number of people in larger states?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:48PM
Don't strawman people. The current system doesn't enable anything like "minority rule." California's vote counts more than 1800% as much as Alaska's vote.
The electoral college was aimed at preventing a tyranny of the majority. The idea is that large states get more representation, but not absolute. And small states get *some* at least somewhat meaningful representation, but not equal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:57AM (2 children)
The fact of our current president certainly puts the lie to that statement.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:09PM (1 child)
You cannot consider things in isolation. Clinton ended up being not only an incredibly unlikable person but was actively and literally calling large chunks of the population various pejoratives and just pissing on everybody except her in-group. She not only did not appeal to much of the population but was seemingly going out of her way to attack people outside of her in-group. It was, by far, one of the worst run campaigns I have ever seen in my life - and I suspect is probably one of the worst in history.
Trump is certainly a polarizing figure, but he was less polarizing than Clinton - so he won and by a very wide margin.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2020, @02:11AM
You're a troll, but I'll give you a little snack:
That election was over nearly four years ago. Why can't you get past it? Or is it that you just like reliving it, as it encouraged hateful scumbags like you? Get over it.
Trump barely *squeaked* by, with tiny margins in three states (WI, MI, PA, a total of 77,000 votes across those three states, with ~20,000,000 votes cast)
Clinton also had 3 million more votes nationwide.
You're a liar, a shill and a piece of shit. Now get back under your bridge!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @12:42PM
It also distributes the fraud. Which may have a canceling effect to some degree. If you only have one tally, then you only have to corrupt one counter.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Monday July 13 2020, @07:18PM
Having grown up in the then-most-populous state of New York, and living most of my life in the most densely populated state of New Jersey, I have always been cheated. Many millions of people are similarly cheated. The vote of a person in Wyoming has almost FOUR TIMES the power of a the vote of a person in California or Texas or New York. The proportion of population in the 1770s the largest:smallest states (of only 13) were 18:1, and now California:Wyoming is 66:1, so the bonus given to the small states - already unfair - is about 3.7 times as much of a bonus now. Even more extreme: In 2016 the popular vote *differential* in New York *City* alone was larger than the entire population of the three smallest states; but that large number of people do not get an extra 6 senators (and 6 electors) to influence the federal government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @07:24PM (3 children)
Looking at it as a non-american with a STEM background, the Electoral College is not absurd. What is absurd is the strong double rounding that is involved: You round a first time at state level (winner gets all EC votes for that state) and then again at a federation level (winner of the EC vote is president).
Not only will double rounding always lead to a result that is less representative of the underlying input. In this specific case it gives much more importance to winning a small majority in a couple of large states, as opposed to winning a large fraction of votes in a majority of states. I honestly cannot see how that could be considered a good thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:20PM
Because conservatives get undeserved power so they like it.
In the US Republicans truly are that simple to figure out, selfish greed that rallies behind hatred. Obviously there is some wiggle room for each individual, but statistically they are hateful greedy jerks.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:45PM
I don't follow what the alternative would be to the latter...our president is 48% Clinton 46% Trump? How do you do that in practice, and will it involve staining the carpet?
Originally the president and vice-president weren't on the same ticket, which led to the 1796 election [wikipedia.org] where guys from opposite parties got elected. It ended up being such a mess they amended the Constitution so it wouldn't happen again.
Or are you saying that the president should be some sort of nonpartisan neutral person chosen from Congress or something? Because good luck with finding somebody to fit that description in our partisan nightmare world here.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @10:25PM
Are you old enough to remember the phrase "hanging chads"?
That was a case study in the benefits of double rounding. State counts are purely local problems. We just add easily verified small numbers across state lines.
With no rounding, every election would require correctly counting all ~50M ballots. With rounding, we just have to count ~1M ballots 50 times.
One task is MUCH easier than the other.
For all its quirks, the electoral college has served us well by turning many close elections into very clear results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:03PM
Regarding "requiring them to support whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote..." I think it should read like this "requiring them to support whichever presidential candidate they were supposed to according to how that state has determined to allocate electors..."
Nebraska is not an All or Nothing state. We had electors vote for D and R in the last presidential election.
Just fyi. Not sure if this was already mentioned as there are lots of comments already but I did attempt using the search feature for "Nebraska".
Also, as far as I am aware the Constitution leaves it to the states to decided how the electors are chosen.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @08:21PM (1 child)
America is already increasingly and dangerously divided. This divide is mostly happening on a political basis that is heavily mirrored geographically as well. The small number of ultra-densely populated city centers tend to be "liberal" and the 97% of the rest of the much less densely populated country tends to be much more conservative.
Get rid of the electoral college and you effectively turn the United States of America into the Subjugated States of California. If anybody thinks that's a good idea, they need to open their eyes to what is already happening. Let's take an already dangerously divided nation and forcibly politically disenfranchise the vast majority of the states in the country alongside every single person in them? What could ever go wrong? I'd like to imagine COVID would have been a wakeup to people that just because something hasn't happened in a long time does not mean it cannot happen. All it takes is the right conditions and we're seemingly already racing towards those conditions without tossing a megaton of gasoline on the fire.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @09:21PM
No, it is not. Thanks for your opinion, Ivan!
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday July 13 2020, @08:25PM (2 children)
Politicians orient their campaigns to the electoral college. Get rid of it, and they will orient their campaigns to the new standard. Which then a very vocal minority will bitch about.
It really pisses me off to read "foo got more popular votes, but bar won because of electoral college". Guess what? Both Foo and Bar aimed their campaigns on the electoral college. Foo just fucked up (read: HRC ignoring that 40% of the electorate hated her ass, but the cities loved her).
What really gets me? I'm gonna vote for a senile old fart just because the Orange One is so damned incompetant.
/ something has gone wrong in our primaries
// 4 years ago, should be convicted felon vs total asshal
/// now? total asshat vs senile old white dude
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2020, @10:24PM (1 child)
You can be forgiven for
// 4 years ago, should be convicted felon vs total asshal
even though it is pretty stupid, the GOP had multiple investigations into Clinton and couldn't dig up anything
But NOW?
/// total asshat convicted criminal vs senile old white dude
Unless you paid zero attention, or if you're just led by the nose by lies from Fox and company, there is no way you could miss Trump's criminal behavior. The most corrupt piece of shit to ever hold office and even now you can't grok it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @10:40PM
You're right. The Democratic political machines play a much cleaner, more genteel game. The present administration does not have the same level of etiquette and discipline. Amateurish corruption is easier to spot.
Last I checked, charges were brought against both Clinton and Trump. Both exhibited clearly unsavory behavior that would have low-level employees terminated without question. Neither was brought down. Both had blind admirers who viewed this as validation.
I know many women voters who could not stomach HRC because of her cold, calculated support for WJC through the scandal. They felt her actions, and the Democratic support for WJC, set back the "me too" movement a good decade or two. This role model validated bad behavior in a very public way.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by weirsbaski on Monday July 13 2020, @09:16PM (1 child)
I know a lot of people say "get rid of it" (sometimes on political bounds, depending on whether EC overall helps or hurts their party), but the EC still has one advantage that people don't talk about: limiting the area-of-effect of recount-hell in extremely close elections.
Many of y'all remember the 2000 election- Florida's popular vote was extremely close, and its EC votes were enough to give either candidate the win. So every county and precinct in the state had lawsuits filed, and hand re-counts (and re-re-counts, and special attention paid to "pregnant chads"), and independent-monitors, and did I mention lawsuits? Now imagine if the election was that close on a national level. Ho. Ly. Shit. The EC limits that mess to just individual states where the vote was that close.
Though, I'll rant off-topic also- I'd prefer that states assigned EC votes proportionally to their statewide vote count. Win 60% of the vote in a state with 10 EC votes? Get 6 EC electors. Etc. Yes, I know there's the issue of assigning the last EC vote or two as the popular vote leaves each candidate with not enough to grab the last EC vote, but simple solution: whoever was closest to getting one more elector gets the last one. Advantage of this: even in a "blue" state or "red" state, votes are meaningful. (Ok, rant mode off).
(Score: 1) by brausch on Monday July 13 2020, @11:56PM
I'd go along with distributing the state's votes by each district being for a party, with the two "bonus" votes of each state going to the winner of that state. Wouldn't be a strict winner-take-all but there would be a reward for winning the state. Candidates would be more likely to address issues of interest to all regions of a state, not just the big cities.
(Score: 1) by brausch on Monday July 13 2020, @11:45PM (1 child)
First, a couple of points: we are a republic, not a straight democracy; we are the United States of America not the United Persons of America.
The electoral college composed of electors had two main purposes:
1) Help out the small states a little bit so they didn't get ignored in national elections
2) Deal with the terrible communications of the 18th and early 19th centuries.
The supreme court ruling recognized that reason #2 is a non-issue in today's world.
Reason #1 still exists though as a reason to keep the electoral college. Whether it is a sufficient reason is a subject for debate.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:37PM
I mean, a lot of states still get ignored when we're talking about where presidential candidates choose to actually visit on their campaigns. The 3-vote minimum just ensures they aren't *completely* irrelevant.
https://www.google.com/search?q=which+states+do+presidential+candidates+visit+the+most+often [google.com]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:19AM (4 children)
Make it so that instead of winner-take-all, a state's electoral college votes are portioned out proportionally to the popular vote. So let's say Squarestate has 10 EVs to give out, and its popular vote breakdown is 70% R, 28% D, 2% "other." That's 7 EVs to the Republicans, 3 to the Democrats, and zero to Vermin Supreme.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @06:37AM (3 children)
The outcome of state elections are almost entirely a state matter. The constitution lays out some requirements and conditions (for instance if a state chooses to restrict voting rights to some group for whatever reason, that group is effectively subtracted from their population for purposes of representative allotment) but lets states go whatever route they want. If a state wants to go proportional, it can. That's the whole point of this ruling. The opinion added in the original article entirely misses this point to go on a misinformed political rant.
There is also one major problem with proportional electoral systems. It would incentivize political homogeneity within states since that would yield disproportionate political influence. I'm sure that makes sense but just to make it crystal clear - a 50/50 California would be worth about 28 electoral votes for a win. A completely homogeneous California would be worth 55. See the start of this post to understand what a dangerous moral hazard you've now created.
Proportional state electorals would only be a good idea with a proportional federal government. And that's something I'd also definitely agree with but the chances of it happening are nil.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:32PM (2 children)
I don't follow why exactly this is a problem...let alone a "dangerous moral hazard."
It might change the way politicians for high office campaign, but why is splitting California's votes proportionally dangerous? Then it makes it harder for a candidate to achieve an electoral college win?
I beg to differ.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:17PM (1 child)
The outcome of state elections are almost entirely a state matter. The constitution lays out some requirements and conditions (for instance if a state chooses to restrict voting rights to some group for whatever reason, that group is effectively subtracted from their population for purposes of representative allotment) but lets states go whatever route they want.
You do not want a world where states are trying to make as close to 100% as possible of their population vote for the "right" party.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 14 2020, @05:54PM
Oh, you're talking about, if a state disenfranchises 99% of its population because it knows it can get the last 1% to reliably vote a certain way?
Which fixes the problem you're talking about.
You weren't nearly as clear about what you were talking in your original post as you seem to think you were.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:46AM
Within state boundaries who cares? Means nothing either way in regards to the electoral college system, the majority of states never had rogue electors to begin with.
In regards to abolishing the system overall? No, that's stupid. Instead of swing states you'll only have 5 Major urban areas. The reason the states elect the president, and not the people, is because the nuances of issues, whether economic or otherwise, vary from state to state greatly. The president presides over a vast republic, not a small city-state.
If the electoral college is invalidated, so is the concept of the senate; they're in fact intertwined directly in their existence. The whole concept exists so states don't try to break away because they're being bullied by a distant but more populous force; kind of like the story of the existence our nation.
The idea of this compact is obviously equally retarded for exactly the same reasons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @07:07AM
Why do you assume that the [in]direct election of the chief executive of a federation is by definition a good idea, let alone a necessary component of a democratic system, in the first place? The whole point of the EC as originally conceived (and heavily debated) was that the nature of the office was so particular that the matter should explicitly *not* be subjected to that.
You really need to show your work here to assert that removing it is a prima facie “good” idea.
(Score: 1) by spyhunter2214 on Sunday August 09 2020, @12:42PM
All,
One of the purposes of the Electoral College, at least as I have been taught, is to ensure that the votes of all voters in all states are given equal weight.
If we elected our president on the basis of popularity alone, then the states (or cities) with the largest populations would ALWAYS elect the president. Voters from less populous states, such as those in the middle of the country, would not have a chance of making their votes count. Politicians would put all their efforts to 'court' the voters in New York, California and Florida, and neglect the rest of the country.
The Electoral College, as imperfect as it is, does serve a purpose!
Respectfully submitted