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.
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…”
deleted by creator
The Electoral College is outdated and should be dissolved.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.
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.
Republicans are all anti college until you’re talking the electoral one.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
You “only” need to convince enough of the current states to elect a president, then they can just join that compact that has states always give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.
It’s only as hard as electing a president, but you need to get a lot of state officials on board.
I’m not convinced that interstate compact will work. it would be hugely controversial, and with the way the SCOTUS is stacked for the foreseeable future it would probably be deemed unconstitutional.
It would also probably be a constant battle to keep it in effect anyway, because every state that has entered the compact can always leave. As long as you can shut off the compact by removing one or two states from it, it will be an unstable mess.
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.
The system he supported wasn’t one where the House was capped at a limit causing the Electoral college to be skewed towards the minority.
Issues with the electoral college can be resolved by getting rid of the Reapportionment Act and moving towards Star or RCV voting. Both are significantly easier to do than passing an Amendment to get rid of the EC.
Working as Thomas Jefferson intended. The “well-meaning, but uninformed people” were those who opposed slavery and today oppose the land owning class.
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
It is wild to have your state’s vote almost predetermined before you cast it.
Pretend democracy
And they won’t let go of it because the Electoral College keeps the wealthy in power.
This is such a lazy, circle jerk answer. And also patently wrong because both parties have wealthy interests, and one would love to get rid of the EC because it would give them more power.
The answer is much more obvious: it would require a constitutional amendment which would require a bunch of states and representatives voting to dilute their power and the power of the people they represent when it comes to choosing the POTUS.
The National Popular Vote movement is a shortcut around the need for a constitutional amendment. States that sign on to it change their EC allocation process so that their state’s votes go to the winner of the national vote – but it only kicks in when enough states sign on to constitute a majority of EC votes.
IIRC it has passed in enough states to be just over 200 EC votes, but getting the last 70 will be a tough process. Still, it is an easier lift than an amendment. And maybe if it ever passes and makes the EC irrelevant there might be more momentum around the amendment to get rid of it altogether.
As loathe as I am to use a BS argument…
Both Sides are wealthy. ;)
It all goes back to the negotiation at the start of the country: “We want to vote” vs. “We don’t want those people to vote”
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.
does it work like us presidential election tho? or are senators in France in the same “level” as electors in the US (i. e. there is no intermediate step between a voting person and elected one)?
Senators are elected by a college of locally elected people. Those locally elected people were elected, during various kinds of prior local elections, by direct universal suffrage (one adult citizen = one vote).
This doesn’t really explain the difference, if any. Americans have one adult citizen = one vote. The core problem with their college is that it’s not representative of the population, so the number of electors from a low population state can be the same as a high population state, effectively giving those citizens significantly more control in federal elections. It’s geographical discrimination, and entirely anti-democratic. How is yours different?
deleted by creator
