4 ms·

There are deeper cases for revisiting the Electoral College than "I don't like it when the popular vote doesn't favor me". One primary issue is that the Elector

There are deeper cases for revisiting the Electoral College than "I don't like it when the popular vote doesn't favor me". One primary issue is that the Electors for each state are not elected. A patch for this and guidance for their behaviors is something that has to be addressed in each state on their own, with a few states here or there seeming to force Electors to submit certain information, such as the popular vote result. Revisiting the simpler argument about not liking the representation provided by the Electoral College, it is valid that its purpose was for a much smaller nation of like 12-14 states at time of inception. It should be obvious that this argument will fall flat because it will never reach the level of consensus necessary to change it, as you need 75% ratification of the states, most of which benefit from the Electoral College amplifying their vote and relevancy. There are better uses of energy. Regulating the Electors is a better use of energy, as there are real inefficiencies and a lack of accountability in who they are and what they do, as they can submit literally anything to Congress no matter what their own state voted for.

Kalium 6y ago
I think there's a quite strong argument that "I don't like it when the outcome doesn't favor me" is one of the worst available reasons to make major structural changes to a system of government. Major changes can easily be made for short-sighted, petty, power-seeking, partisan, or other unwise reasons. The US Constitution is difficult to change in no small part to guard against these. Every time I see someone advocating for an Amendment on the basis that they think it will favor their brand of partisanship, I inevitably find myself thinking that they're exactly what the system was designed to stop. Which is really deeply unfortunate on many levels. These are very often kind, compassionate, caring people who have correctly identified a very real problem in dire need of addressing.
kthejoker2 6y ago
Supreme Court ruled this year that that's not so, you can't be a faithless elector. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/885168480/supreme-court-rules-state-faithless-elector-laws-constitutional https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/885168480/supreme-court-rules...
- vmception 6y ago
  That’s a decent clarification
- t0mbstone 6y ago
  If you can't legally be a faithless elector, then there is no point to having an electoral college. Just let the popular vote decide, since that's how the electoral college is obligated to vote anyways.
  - kthejoker2 6y ago
    Electoral College votes aren't distributed by population; they're distributed based on representation in Congress. So each state receives 2 electors from the Senate even if only a single person lived in them. But of course the Electoral College should be abolished. Because in fact, in a truly dystopian scenario, someone could be elected President with only 44 votes in their favor. That is, if only one person each voted in the 41 states with the least amount of electors (2 people for Maine and Nebraska which split their EVs) and DC, and all voted for the same candidate, that candidate would receive 280 electoral votes. Even if the other 9 states voted 100% against that candidate, representing ~100 million voters, our system would declare the first candidate the winner.

Kalium 6y ago

I think there's a quite strong argument that "I don't like it when the outcome doesn't favor me" is one of the worst available reasons to make major structural changes to a system of government. Major changes can easily be made for short-sighted, petty, power-seeking, partisan, or other unwise reasons. The US Constitution is difficult to change in no small part to guard against these. Every time I see someone advocating for an Amendment on the basis that they think it will favor their brand of partisanship, I inevitably find myself thinking that they're exactly what the system was designed to stop. Which is really deeply unfortunate on many levels. These are very often kind, compassionate, caring people who have correctly identified a very real problem in dire need of addressing.

kthejoker2 6y ago

Supreme Court ruled this year that that's not so, you can't be a faithless elector. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/885168480/supreme-court-rules-state-faithless-elector-laws-constitutional https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/885168480/supreme-court-rules...

vmception 6y ago
That’s a decent clarification
t0mbstone 6y ago
If you can't legally be a faithless elector, then there is no point to having an electoral college. Just let the popular vote decide, since that's how the electoral college is obligated to vote anyways.
- kthejoker2 6y ago
  Electoral College votes aren't distributed by population; they're distributed based on representation in Congress. So each state receives 2 electors from the Senate even if only a single person lived in them. But of course the Electoral College should be abolished. Because in fact, in a truly dystopian scenario, someone could be elected President with only 44 votes in their favor. That is, if only one person each voted in the 41 states with the least amount of electors (2 people for Maine and Nebraska which split their EVs) and DC, and all voted for the same candidate, that candidate would receive 280 electoral votes. Even if the other 9 states voted 100% against that candidate, representing ~100 million voters, our system would declare the first candidate the winner.