Skip to main content

A Ceremonial Electoral College

The 2020 Electoral College: Our First Look - Rasmussen Reports®

It now appears that the electoral college may be effectively undermined without the need for invoking the cumbersome constitutional amendment process. The process is underway, and the late term decision this year by the US Supreme Court helped.

After all, what would happen if each state bound its electors to vote for whichever candidate won the largest number of popular votes? SCOTUS' decision suggests (although this cannot be described as the res judicata) that the states can do pretty much whatever they want in this respect. If every state does this, then every subsequent electoral college outcome will be the same: a unanimous ratification of the popular vote.

I'm not sure how long the institution will survive as a purely ceremonial matter once this outcome becomes obvious, but it hardly matters. There are surely people who will consider it an honor to be one of those casting these pre-ordained ballots, the constitutional letter will be observed, and the actual popular vote will be determinate.  It will be a bit like the British monarchy: they keep it there for the tourists and the ceremonies, while letting the popularly elected Parliament do all the deciding.

Ah, but how does one get all the states on board?

Actually, it will not be necessary to get them all on board, simply enough to create an alliance with enough states to add up to 270 electoral votes.  It will be nice to make it unanimous, but once that critical mass is passed the rest should be easy.

Getting to that critical mass? Tricky, but still a bit easier than the amendment process.
Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryJuly 18, 2020 at 5:44 AM

    The process that, as you say, is underway is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It has 196 of the 270 electoral votes needed to take effect.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more