politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
What kind of protections?
To be honest, I’m not sure it applies.
The electoral college is an institution where electors cast votes to elect the President. In theory, it allows electors to choose a different president if the population chooses someone terrible.
It’s not /supposed/ to favor red states. However the formula for counting number of electors relies on the number of representatives in the house. That is fixed at 435 by law. To fix the electoral college, we’d have to remove that cap and it would work the way the founders intended.
But then, you’d need a helluva lot of dissenters to change. Is it possible? Sure. Is this system built for current day population and densities? Arguably not
Except the scotus recently ruled that electors have to abide by the laws of the state that require them to vote a certain way, so the idea that they are free to vote as they wish is gone.
And part of the reason why it was implemented is that the population in the north was way bigger than the south, and so they were trying to make it more even where southern States would have more representation, so in a way it was meant to "protect red states."
It's important to note that the human populations of northern and southern states were fairly close to even, but the south decided that anyone with a bit too much melanin was property, not a human with rights and a vote....and they were very reluctant to give up that system.
True. I should have been more clear and said voting population. I think the population in the south exceeded the north if you count slaves, which is why they only counted 3/5ths.
Today each state decides how to assign their electors. In my uneducated opinion for the system to be fixed, rather than states being "winner take all", it would make more sense for each state to allocate electors in proportion to the popular vote within their state.
Would be easier to just get rid of the damn thing
I did some math assuming lowest population is 1 seat and rounding to the nearest whole number based on 2020 census using that factor.
We should have 574 seats with 676 electors. I didn’t include Puerto Rico or overseas who didn’t claim a state.
It makes sure white people never lose political control of the country.
It absolutely must go - fuck the EC with a rusty fucking spork.
I'm curious too. The EC has a troubling history - it was invented because of slavery, https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
Another strike against the EC - no other country uses one. If it really provided protections, surely another country would have adopted it by now? It's hardly a secret formula or anything.
Consider the possiblity that the president will be elected by the popular vote. That might be dangerous
The leader might be elected DEMOCRATICALLY? The horror
If the majority of Americans vote for Trump then America is a failed state.
And, when the president is elected against the popular vote? Like in 2016?
2000 too. Not to mention that in 1980 the electoral college did not protect us from a populist fascist. So I'm not really sure what good Electoral College is. If it doesn't do the thing the people say it's supposed to do. Even though all it was ever supposed to do was to protect slave states and conservative power. Which is all it's ever done.
I thought the issue with the 2000 election was because of SCOTUS. Not a yank, and wasn't amping for the 1980s, but I appreciate your insights!
2000 was only close due to the electoral college. The supreme court fuck up didn't help of course. Without the Electoral College Reagan or bush senior would have been the last Republican presidents we had. Because I think they were the last two to win the popular vote.
A lot went on in 2000. One was the electoral vote didn't match the popular. Another was that the automatic counting machines rejected good ballots due to error in Florida. The spread was close enough to trigger a recount. After the first machine recount gore requested a hand recount. The Republicans running Florida threw up every barrier they could. I belive gore was up in the hand recount and likely to win it, but they moved the date up and stated they would reject recounts not finished. The Supreme Court upheld the date, which had been chosen to be impossible to meet.
It protected a business-friendly candidate from one that was supported by women and minorities. The system worked perfectly.
Is that you, Alito?
Everyone's vote having the same weight, and our elections not being a competition to win a handful of battleground states while ignoring the rest of the country? Don't threaten me with a good time.
It feels like the only protections the EC provides is to the GOPs ability to win the presidency. I agree with Walz, the EC needs to go, it's too easy to game by focusing on swing states.
The ec Is so anti democratic. It does need to go
What it was designed for, to protect the slave states and provide another barrier to populist movements.
Also the EC will never be abolished, despite whatever candidates promise every 4 years. It's too useful.
While there's plenty of criticism of the constitution along slavery lines, this isn't one of them. Sorting the 1790 census by total population and then comparing the percentage of slave population, you'll see that it's very mixed. If the EC were to protect slavery, we would expect states with a high slave population to have a lower population overall, but that isn't the case.
Also of note is that only two states (Maine and Massachusetts) had zero slaves. There were a handful of house slaves in almost every state at the time. Those states didn't have a heavy economic dependence on slavery, though. It's the southern states, with their whole economy built around plantation slavery, that are the real problem. But again, they don't line up in ways that would give them an EC edge.
No, its a pretty well documented critique. The EC increased the South's delegates by a huge margin.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins
Except it doesn't check out when you break down the numbers.
The EC in the 1800 election was 73/65 in favor of Jefferson. The popular vote was 60% in Jefferson's favor, but he got 53% of the EC. If anything, the EC put him at a disadvantage.
The tie spoken of above was a technical issue between Jefferson and his intended Vice President, Aaron Burr. It doesn't have much to do with slavery at all. They were trying to hack around the system of setting the second place winner as Vice President, and it blew up in their face. Burr was always intended by the Democratic-Republicans to be Vice President.
The 12th amendment was passed before the next election to do away with that means of selecting the Vice President. It was ratified by both slave and free states. It was rejected by Delaware and Connecticut, both of which had <10% of their population as slaves in the 1800 Census (only three states had zero slaves by then).
Adams was by far more consistently against slavery compared to Jefferson. You can find writings where Jefferson was against it, but his actions plainly speak otherwise. Adams never owned a slave and even avoided employing them secondhand. Which is about as difficult as avoiding products from tobacco industry subsidiaries today.
Adams lost, but he would have lost with or without the EC.
Anything that happens later (which is where the article goes after the above) isn't particularly relevant to how the EC was intended to work. The population dynamics and entry of new states couldn't have been predicted at the time.
The three-fifths compromise, though? Absolute fucking evil. Adams maybe wins the EC in 1800 without that, and (more importantly) Congress would certainly look very different. The EC was, if anything, a counterbalance to the three-fifths compromise, though not a very strong one.
The EC should go away because it's antidemocratic. The argument that it was for slavery, though, just doesn't add up.
Let's see what the founders had in mind:
In other words, it's supposed to stop someone like Trump from ever being President. Since that clearly failed, maybe we should junk the whole thing.
Even this is generous. The Federalist Papers, IMO, should be taken as a way to sell the new constitution to the populace. They make it sound like the whole thing was more well thought out than it really was. The constitution that came out is just the compromise everyone could live with after debating it for hours. Politicians back then aren't that different from today; they have their own agendas, their own ambitions, and their own squabbles. They also get tired after long debates and will vote for anything as long as it gets them out of there.
On top of that, a good chunk of what they were thinking at the time--which you can see echos of in the quote above--was deflecting criticism that democracy couldn't work. The US was the first modern democracy, and there were plenty of aristocrats in Europe (and even some useful idiots domestically) who laughed off the idea of a government run by peasants. The result is a system that doesn't go all in on democracy, and has all these little exceptions. "No, no, see, the electoral college will stop a populist idiot from taking executive power".
We've changed a lot of those over the years, such as electing senators rather than having them appointed by state governors. In hindsight, these were not necessary at all. It's time for the electoral college to go.