4 ms·

The rationale for the EC and every other compromise in the Constitution was simple: it’s what was required to get the states to actually sign up. There was the

The rationale for the EC and every other compromise in the Constitution was simple: it’s what was required to get the states to actually sign up. There was the very real possibility that the individual states would go their own way if they didn’t like the proposed Constitution. Larger states could have easily decided that they didn’t need to be part of a larger country. Smaller states could have easily decided that they would be ruled by the larger states and that they’d be better off independent. The electoral college was needed to convince everyone to stick together. Same with the different structures of the House and the Senate, the 3/5ths compromise, and more. Things are completely different now. There’s no realistic possibility that any state will exit the union. The major purpose of so many elements of our federal system is completely gone.

mieseratte 7y ago
The EC is a check on populism, and very clearly still needed.
- mikeash 7y ago
  The EC never fulfilled that function. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of an election. The notion that the EC exists to ensure that popular sentiment doesn’t elect someone deeply unfit for the office was definitely disproven in the last election.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Swinging it to Hillary would also have elected someone deeply unfit for the office. I agree that last election was the perfect scenario for the EC to do its job. But who should it have elected instead? And, could it have actually done so without touching off a civil war? (Not a rhetorical one, not a metaphorical one - a real live shooting live rounds, dead bodies piling up, state against state and brother against brother civil war.)
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
That's fair. We have a set of rules, and the rationale for many of them is gone. Therefore... what? Throw them all out? If so, replace them with what? Worse: How do you get everyone to agree on what to replace them with? As it turns out, there's a mechanism for getting everyone to agree, and to prevent changes that everyone does not agree with (for certain values of "everyone"): Amend the Constitution.
- mikeash 7y ago
  It turns out that there’s another mechanism to accomplish this: a collection of states adding up to a majority of electoral votes can agree to cast all of their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Hence the subject of the article.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I don't think it will "accomplish this", because it's too low a threshold. This mechanism doesn't add up to "getting everyone to agree". It adds up to "getting 50% + 1 of the electoral votes", which is not the same thing. It's going to leave far too many people feeling bypassed and marginalized. In today's political environment, those people might become problematic.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Oh, I thought you were saying this was the mechanism for deciding how to change the rules. At any rate, people may well feel bypassed and marginalized, but hopefully the ones outside of swing states will come around once they realize that their vote actually matters for once. And if they don’t, well, lots more people feel bypassed and marginalized now. If it’s a bad idea, what do you propose to do about it? The Constitution allows states to cast their votes as they see fit.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > Oh, I thought you were saying this was the mechanism for deciding how to change the rules. That too. This "compact" approach bugs me partly because it's a hack to get around the appropriate way of doing this, which they know they can't get enough support to do. > The Constitution allows states to cast their votes as they see fit. That may be correct. But the Wikipedia article on this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...) indicates that the constitutionality is at least in question. I'd really like to see the Supreme Court decide on the constitutionality of this approach before the first election where it would be in force.

mieseratte 7y ago

The EC is a check on populism, and very clearly still needed.

mikeash 7y ago
The EC never fulfilled that function. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of an election. The notion that the EC exists to ensure that popular sentiment doesn’t elect someone deeply unfit for the office was definitely disproven in the last election.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Swinging it to Hillary would also have elected someone deeply unfit for the office. I agree that last election was the perfect scenario for the EC to do its job. But who should it have elected instead? And, could it have actually done so without touching off a civil war? (Not a rhetorical one, not a metaphorical one - a real live shooting live rounds, dead bodies piling up, state against state and brother against brother civil war.)

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

That's fair. We have a set of rules, and the rationale for many of them is gone. Therefore... what? Throw them all out? If so, replace them with what? Worse: How do you get everyone to agree on what to replace them with? As it turns out, there's a mechanism for getting everyone to agree, and to prevent changes that everyone does not agree with (for certain values of "everyone"): Amend the Constitution.

mikeash 7y ago
It turns out that there’s another mechanism to accomplish this: a collection of states adding up to a majority of electoral votes can agree to cast all of their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Hence the subject of the article.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I don't think it will "accomplish this", because it's too low a threshold. This mechanism doesn't add up to "getting everyone to agree". It adds up to "getting 50% + 1 of the electoral votes", which is not the same thing. It's going to leave far too many people feeling bypassed and marginalized. In today's political environment, those people might become problematic.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Oh, I thought you were saying this was the mechanism for deciding how to change the rules. At any rate, people may well feel bypassed and marginalized, but hopefully the ones outside of swing states will come around once they realize that their vote actually matters for once. And if they don’t, well, lots more people feel bypassed and marginalized now. If it’s a bad idea, what do you propose to do about it? The Constitution allows states to cast their votes as they see fit.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      > Oh, I thought you were saying this was the mechanism for deciding how to change the rules. That too. This "compact" approach bugs me partly because it's a hack to get around the appropriate way of doing this, which they know they can't get enough support to do. > The Constitution allows states to cast their votes as they see fit. That may be correct. But the Wikipedia article on this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...) indicates that the constitutionality is at least in question. I'd really like to see the Supreme Court decide on the constitutionality of this approach before the first election where it would be in force.