The electorial college needs to go

Your words show what a shallow appreciation you have for the structure of the US of A and the genius of its founders. The essence of our democracy- never intended to be a direct democracy- is that the popular will is mediated by institutions.

I favor filters between the popular will of the moment and the policies of government because I fear the tyranny of the majority, something with your animus toward Republics you show no evidence of appreciating. If anything, we suffer an excess of the will of an ignorant, uncaring majority whose "opinions"- and I use that word loosely- are rooted in nothing more substantial than the latest political ad.

Good government is not well served by universal suffrage. I'm not sure how to limit the voting franchise- I'm not sure there is a "best" way. But we need something more than a body temperature of about 98.6 to be eligible to vote.

 

Maybe every 10 years, during the census, a random sampling of each state's voting age citizens should be given an IQ test. The ones who score the highest, one year before the next presidential election, shall be required by law to become educated as to the concerns of said citizen's state, the US and the world (at the expense of the state, naturally.) Then, on election day, these intelligent, well informed citizens will cast votes for the next president. No way either Trump or Hillary would have been elected under Dice's system.

 

I agree with the late journalist, William F. Buckley, that I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone directory than the two thousand members of the Harvard faculty (course, as a Yale man, he would feel that way). Still, I think a good high school civics level understanding of the history of the US of A and the structure of our government should be part of the requirements to vote. Right there, you would weed out over 50% of the electorate.

 

Good ole William F. Buckley. They don't make Republicans like that anymore.

 

Not all compacts between states require explicit Congressional approval – the Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee that only those agreements which would increase the power of states at the expense of the federal government required it.

Interstate compact - Wikipedia

 

Literacy tests for voters have a bad history, being used extensively to suppress minority voting before the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Maybe the emphasis should be on having them for our government leaders. Goodby, Donald!

 

...

 

Seems like circumventing the electoral college would be states usurping federal control of elections.

 

Not really. It's up to the states to cast their electoral votes however they wish. The Feds have nothing to lose or gain by this.

 

They do if it becomes a coalition of states trying to enforce the same charter. Face it, the only reason anyone brings up the electoral college is because they can't seem to win while it's around. And that's because they want to apply different rules to their circumstances as opposed to competing with the same rules that everyone else suffers with.

It's yet another manipulation of the purpose of established procedures in an effort to fix political races. And it would not be happening if the US political system fell into this party nonsense to begin with. But we're stuck with it, so we have no other choice but to ensure the people competing for our top office are held to a rigid set of standards. Who in the hell thinks that becoming the president should be "easy"?

 

I certainly agree that literacy tests have a "bad history" in the United States. That, however, does not make them in principal a bad idea. They must be implemented without regard to a citizen's race.

Democracy should be regarded a means of promoting good governance, not as an end unto itself.

 

Except I think we know the reality of how it would play out in today's political climate. If such a compact looked advantageous to the Federal assholes currently in power then it would fly. If it looked threatening to their positions then it would be struck down. Hell of a way to run a country. The Federal government is a big failure so I'm all for the states taking whatever power they can.

 

All US politics require is more brotherly love, we can solve all the world's problems by chanting happy, happy, joy, joy!

For twenty years, congress has gerrymandered our votes to death, stripped us of our constitutional rights, and turned the country into a military state with Donald Duck now prepared to declare himself emperor for life. Don't worry about the electoral college, he'll make sure they are never a problem again.

 

We are far from a military state, and the Don, for all his faults, is not preparing to sit in the Oval Office for life. Trump Derangement Syndrome must be a form of paranoid schizophrenia. Sorry to hear of your problem.

 

Other than social security, the vast majority of US tax dollars have gone into making weapons and expanding the military for the last 70 years. Our military is now equal to the next six to sixteen largest in the world combined, we pay half the bills for NATO and the UN, are the largest exporter on the planet, and weapons are our largest manufactured export, while we answer to no one. Our votes have been taken away and our constitutional rights, begging the question of when you consider a country to be a military state.

Donald Duck is diverting funds from the airforce as we speak, as in a billion or so dollars worth, and we shall see whether the military has the last laugh. Congress is supposed to protect our rights, but has sold us all down the river, and given the military and the president all the real power, so things could get very interesting. Congress empowered the military to declare martial law and round up citizens like so many cattle, while Donald Duck has failed thus far in every attempt to declare martial law. I'm betting on the Pentagon declaring the asshole insane and putting a general in office.

 

I do not believe you. I do not think the vast majority- not even a majority- of US tax dollars have gone to the military. Where do you get these numbers?

As for our military being equal to the "next six to sixteen largest in the world combined" .... I don't even know what you mean. China's army is bigger. More important than size is do we have the capabilities to address the mission we have set? Very questionable. Pax Americana is fading into history. I think history shows that periods without a hegemon are very dangerous.

 

The federal government actually has accountants and, although I know how silly it is to take the federal government's word on anything, who you gonna call? Ghostbusters?

Jane's is probably the only real alternative, and they keep a close eye on all the latest technology and the prices, but the NSA regulates everything they print.

Defence & Security Intelligence & Analysis | Jane's 360

 

The electoral college is there to protect against mob rule. If we had mob rule, California would have such a huge say in politics over other states with smaller populations. And let's face it... if California's voice determined our politics, the country would be reduced to a rubble in a week.

James Madison always explained that if you had direct voting and mob rule as a democracy, the country would become split into factions, and as soon as one faction grew over that 50% mark, nothing could stop them from overcoming the rights of other citizens. He called it "tyranny of the majority". Imagine being co-owners of a company with a few other people, and they shared similar interests in the direction of the company. Well, then you'd never have a say and they'd be able to do whatever they want merely because they outnumbered you. You'd be a doormat.

I understand why abolishing the electoral college looks good on paper, but the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. They wrote about it over and over as being absolutely required.

 

Nonsense! No other functioning democracy has such an institution, and they don't have mob rule. The Electoral College, as originally instituted, was based on the theory that the electors would be men of quality, a notch or more in intelligence and information-levels above the man on the street, who would exercise their independent judgment in choosing the President. Instead, they're now party hacks. The Founding fathers didn't anticipate the dominance of the system by political parties, which they considered undesirable. In reality, the Electoral College functions today to preserve the dominance of the two parties and the inflated influence of unpopulous rural states. But it's not the Electoral College per se that's at the root of the problem, but the winner take all method most states use to choose the electors. And that is governed by state law, not the U.S. Constitution. The Founders were intelligent enough to know they were fallible human beings. That's why they gave us the amendment process for correcting their mistakes.

 

History provides little basis for confidence that literacy tests will be implemented in a way that isn't biased in some way or other. You're talking about an uworkable ideal.

 

I really do not see that as an issue. Everybody takes the same test- or they are randomly assigned- and everyone is held to the same standard. Neither of those were true of literacy tests in the Jim Crow South.