The only reason we have it is because Republicans know that if we got rid of it, they’d never win the white house again without overhauling the whole party.
See Also: Why Puerto Rico and Washington DC are not states
“Hey, Puerto Rico is economically moderate and somewhat socially conservative! You should really want them as a state, right GOP?”
GOP: “Uh, it’s just about the shade of… c-cultural differences…”
The thing is, the GOP is dying and they know that. They built a brand around elderly blue collar white folks who love the bible they’ve never read and are so racist they even hate white guys with a tan…
Their brand appeals to this guy and excludes everyone else. That’s why they Gerrymander, that’s why they don’t want fair elections, that’s why they’ve became supportive of fascist ideals.
They know they either fade away and cease to be or…
deleted by creator
And also because democrats would lose their big tent anti-republican status.
I don’t get it.
The Electoral College is outdated and should be dissolved. Another problem in the USA, the wealthy are admired and considered heroes. In the EU, nobody trusts the bastards and people will strike. I believe the French are the best when they disagree with their leaders and upper class because they would drag out the guillotine.
Removed by mod
This shit has to go.
Yep, but you also need to get rid of FPTP.
Without that, gerrymendring won’t work, and you’ll actually be able to get more than two parties as realistic optiobs to vote for.
the inherent problem is you’d need some of the less populous states to voluntarily give their disproportionate power away. Even if they agree at the time that a popular vote is in their favor, that doesn’t mean it will be forever. It’s in their best interest to never give that power up.
Maybe it’s time to re-randomize the map. Six Californias, merge a couple Dakotas, and a new state called “Steve” in the middle of Texas for no good reason.
States seem to be a classic seemed-sensible-in-1790 hack, goofier and less relevant as time goes on. At best you get arbitrage plays, finding the most comfortable jurisdiction for your particular graft. At worst, it seems to be a great line for the scum too stupid and/or crooked to get a federal position to settle at.
I wonder if a UK-style model, where the regional governments are devolved narrow lists of things they can play at government with, would work better.
Luv me states. Luv me history. But realistically speaking, if they could be abolished and replaced with nearly any other modern system of national/regional government organization, it would be massive improvement.
Not entirely. An act of congress is all that is needed to repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and allow more members of the house to be seated. Increase the number of house members from 437 (approx 750,000 citizens per rep) to 1093 (2.5x increase yielding approx 300,000 citizens per rep). This is roughly the same ratio of house reps to citizens when this bill was passed nearly 100 years ago.
A capped house significantly broke the balance between populous states and small states further in the favor of the small states. Ending this imbalance would move both the executive branch and the legislature to more accurately represent the will of the people.
even in that scenario you’re relying on some senators/reps of less populous states to cede power. there’s no getting around that fundamental problem.
It’s not just the electoral college. The US was the first big modern democracy, and all the democracies that have sprung up since took one look at its structure and said “nah”. This includes democracies the US directly helped setup in their current form, such as Germany, Japan, and Iraq. Nobody wants to replicate that structure, including the US.
States as semi-sovereign entities rather than administrative zones? Nope. Every state gets two reps in the upper legislative branch? Nope. Those two reps plus at least one lower legislative rep means that the smallest state gets at least three votes in the Electoral College? What madness is that? Even the executive being separate from the head of the legislative branch is uncommon everywhere else.
Parliamentary systems, where the Prime Minister is both head of the legislative branch and the executive, are more common. Some of these split some of the duties of the executive off into a President, but that President isn’t as singularly powerful as the US President. The US idea that the different branches would have checks and balances against each other was rendered pointless the moment the first political parties were developed.
Even the executive being separate from the head of the legislative branch is uncommon everywhere else.
The Presidential System (as distinct from the Prime Ministerial System) is common throughout Latin America and West Africa. Incidentally, it is also a governmental structure more vulnerable to coups and similar violent takeovers, as the President being in conflict with the Legislature often leads to these snap power grabs rather than more well-defined transitions of power after elections.
The US idea that the different branches would have checks and balances against each other was rendered pointless the moment the first political parties were developed.
Well, that’s another big difference between the US system and systems in countries with more settled populations. Regional parties (the Scottish National Party being a large and distinct block of voters in the UK, the uMkhonto weSizwe as a Zulu nationalist group in South Africa, the Taiwan Solidarity Union as a Taiwanese nativist faction, or Otzma Yehudit in Israel which draws its doctrine from a single ultra-nationalist Rabbi Meir Kahane) can all exist in parliamentary systems in a way that a Mormon Party or a Texas Party or an African-American Party has failed to materialize in the United States.
The idea of checks and balances doesn’t work when you’re forced into coalition with one of the two dominant (heavily coastal) parties to have any sway in Congress or within the Presidential administration. And that goes beyond just “Voting for President”. The Democrats don’t nominate bureaucratic leaders (Sec of State, Attorney General, etc), the President does. This gives enormous influence to a singular individual who functions as both Party Leader and National Leader.
Compare this to Brazil or Germany or India or Israel, where power-sharing agreements between caucusing parties encourage the incoming Prime Minister to choose from the leaders of aligned party groups to fill cabinet positions. There’s an immediate payoff to being the head of a small but influential partisan group under the PM system in a way that the American system doesn’t have.
Now, do you want Anthony Blinken or Janet Yellen to have to hold a Congressional seat and act as Secretary of State or Secretary of Treasury? Idk. I’ve seen Brits scoff at this system as being its own kind of mess. But I can imagine a country in which a Yellen-equivalent head of the Liberals for Better Economic Policy Party has half a dozen seats and Blinken’s Americans for NATO Party has half a dozen seats, and this is what Biden needs to be Prime Minister, so he appoints them to his cabinet as a trade-in for their support.
However, many other delegates were adamant that there be an indirect way of electing the president to provide a buffer against what Thomas Jefferson called “well-meaning, but uninformed people.”
How disappointed he would be to see his idea for protecting against decisions being made by the uninformed masses having been so subverted by the very system he supported.
Any system that remains static for decades inevitably gets gamed by the powers that be. Sadly it seems we might be past the point of no return for this country…this election is everything
Working as Thomas Jefferson intended. The “well-meaning, but uninformed people” were those who opposed slavery and today oppose the land owning class.
Republicans are all anti college until you’re talking the electoral one.
It’s not a national election, but in Hong Kong, a 1,500-member Beijing-controlled electoral college elects the Chief Executive of Hong Kong and controls nearly half of the legislature.
Would it be much of an issue if we insisted presidential powers were limited to what they were when the Constitution came into force? Today’s presidents (both parties) greatly exceed the powers of Washington and Jefferson.
Washington is a bad example, the people wanted to king him, his salary was huge, and if he wanted to do so something all he had to do was ask.
Do you think if the electoral college was banned that criminals would give up theirs? Wake up, the only thing that stops a bad guy with an electoral college is a good guy with an electoral college!
Well yea, this country is held hostage by the shitbag wealth class. Get rid of them. Tax them out of the wealth they lied, cheated, and stole via tax schemes, loopholes, and other criminal activity. We still have the power.
What are you talking about, Bozos and Muskrat absolutely earned the 100 billion increase in their wealth over the last 10 years! They just Work Harder™ and are More Valuable™ than us!
/Wrist
Problem is that half the population is willing to keep the wealth class in power. And, ironically, many in that half of the population are among the poorest in the nation who believe the wealth will eventually trickle down to them.
As long as they’re able to mislead a bunch of stupid idiots to think that things that don’t affect them, such as trans rights, they’ll keep winning. Class solidarity is impossible when your fellow-poor believe that immigrants are the reason they’re poor. Unfortunately, they’ve succeeded in keeping people stupid and uneducated.
Pretend democracy
the idea of using an electoral college to indirectly elect a president spread to other republics.
This was news to me. In particular, after the Holy Roman Empire fell, other countries still adopted an EC. Before abandoning it.
But they all did.
It is wild to have your state’s vote almost predetermined before you cast it.
The title should probably specify “for a presidential election”. France uses an electoral college for its Sénat, it’s made of regional/departmental elected people.
what other country ever did?
The Roman Republic.
No, really - the Tribal Assembly, the democratic legislature of the Republic, was divided by tribes, and tribes sorted according to geographic residence. Urban tribes got 4 votes, and rural tribes got 31 votes. Just like today!
[sobbing]
I know there wasn’t exactly much else to go off of at the time, but it still blows my mind that the American Founding Fathers looked at an empire that collapsed largely due to political corruption and thought “oh yeah, this is what we gotta use!”
