Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Republicans United States Politics

Lawrence Lessig Calls For The Electoral College to Choose Clinton Over Trump (washingtonpost.com) 1430

Lawrence Lessig's new op-ed in the Washington Post argues against the idea "that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president." (Paywalled version here, free version here.) Lessig points out that the electoral college results have already been ignored twice in U.S. history -- in 1824 and 1876. The Constitution says nothing about "winner take all." It says nothing to suggest that electors' freedom should be constrained in any way...They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a wheel.
Complaining that the electoral college weights the votes in Wyoming roughly four times as heavily as the votes in Michigan, Lessig argues that the popular vote should be respected, and that the authors of the U.S. Constitution "left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton's favor."

Meanwhile, Politico is reporting that six electors, "mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado," are already urging electors pledged to Clinton and Trump to instead coalesce around "a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich." And the ethics lawyers for both President Obama and President Bush both told one liberal site "that if Trump continues to retain ownership over his sprawling business interests by the time the electors meet on December 19, they should reject Trump." Finally, from the original submission:
Even Donald Trump has called the Electoral College a "total sham." Is it time for the Electoral College to reflect the popular vote?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawrence Lessig Calls For The Electoral College to Choose Clinton Over Trump

Comments Filter:
  • Change the law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:37PM (#53367813)

    Stop bitching about how unfair the electoral college is. Go through the legal process to change/eliminate it so this it doesn't happen again, if that's what the people want.

    • Re:Change the law (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:50PM (#53367893)
      I think the point this Harvard Law Professor is making is that this is within the bounds of the law, and even has historical precedent. But maybe you know more than he does.
    • Re:Change the law (Score:5, Informative)

      by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:58PM (#53367951) Journal

      All I have to say is "good luck with that." There have never been more than a few, some electors are legally bound to vote with their state, etc.

      Still, surprised he'd do that given what they really think about him [wikileaks.org]

      From:ntanden@gmail.com
      To: john.podesta@gmail.com
      Date: 2015-08-11 21:38
      Subject: Re: You know what average Americans need?

      I fucking hate that guy.

      Like I'd like to kick the shit out of him on twitter...but I know that is
      dumb.

      On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:35 AM, John Podesta
      wrote:

      > An everyday American pompous law professor.
      > On Aug 11, 2015 5:07 PM, "Neera Tanden" wrote:
      >
      >> The smugness of Larry Lessig
      >
      >

      • Re:Change the law (Score:5, Informative)

        by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:45PM (#53368315) Journal

        To clarify, I think far better of him than that, but I'm somewhat surprised he would be eager to fight for a group who treats him that way.

      • Re:Change the law (Score:5, Informative)

        by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @10:08PM (#53368511)

        some electors are legally bound to vote with their state, etc.

        False. Some states require electors to sign a pledge agreeing to vote however the state says. They can require them to sign the pledge but they can't require them to honor the pledge.

        The Electors are free to elect any eligible person to the office of the President.

    • Re:Change the law (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:05PM (#53368001)

      It is specially ironic considering how dems went after Trump after he insinuated wouldn't accept the election results.

      Don't take me wrong, I'm terrified about the prospect of the orange sexist taking office as much as anyone else, but he won the elections. These talks about having the EC changing their vote, or recounts are delusional.

      • Re:Change the law (Score:5, Informative)

        by cob666 ( 656740 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:42PM (#53368299) Homepage

        It is specially ironic considering how dems went after Trump after he insinuated wouldn't accept the election results.

        Don't take me wrong, I'm terrified about the prospect of the orange sexist taking office as much as anyone else, but he won the elections. These talks about having the EC changing their vote, or recounts are delusional.

        It's not ironic at all. The democrats weren't the ones that started the recount process, it was a third party candidate after reading a study that showed a marked discrepancy in votes between paper districts and e-voting districts. Regardless of the outcome of a recount, if a recount is what it takes for people to finally accept the results of the election then that's a good thing.

    • Re:Change the law (Score:5, Interesting)

      by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:50PM (#53368369)

      Stop bitching about how unfair the electoral college is. Go through the legal process to change/eliminate it so this it doesn't happen again, if that's what the people want.

      Right! And also, it's bizarre how electors of a state, say ID, are supposed to turn against the voters of their state and vote for Hilary just b'cos CA has given Hilary a margin that erases Trump's margin in the rest of the country. If they wanna do that, increase CA's #electoral votes in future elections.

  • It's past time. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Simulant ( 528590 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:37PM (#53367815) Journal
    " Is it time for the Electoral College to reflect the popular vote?"

    Way past time.
    • Re:It's past time. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:54PM (#53367919)

      Well, each State can do what it likes with its Electors now. Including reflect the popular vote nationwide (or vote against the popular vote, for that matter).

      Anything else requires a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that.

  • by SensitiveMale ( 155605 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:40PM (#53367829)

    For months before the election, the MSM & Hillary supporters hammered about how Trump & his supporters wouldn't accept the results of the election.

    Now that Hillary has lost, her supports can't accept the results. Death threats to electors. Riots in the street. Offering the pay fines for electors who break the law. MSM story after story about how the circumvent the will of the people. Jill Stein taking donations to force a recount where even she says that there was no fraudulent or illegal activity.

    It seems life is not without a sense of irony.

    • > For months before the election, the MSM & Hillary supporters hammered about how Trump & his supporters wouldn't accept the results of the election.

      For years before the election, Trump and Trump supporters hammer about how the Electoral College was the worst thing to happen to democracy. [1] [twitter.com].

      • For years before the election, Trump and Trump supporters hammer about how the Electoral College was the worst thing to happen to democracy. [1] [twitter.com].

        So "Trump and Trump Supporters" can now tweet on Trump's twitter?
        A single tweet is now "hammering?"

        You may want to rethink your argument there Sparky.

  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:41PM (#53367837)

    Why is this on slashdot?

    What a bunch of sore losers.

    They should all move to Canada. Quickly, like they promised.

  • by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:43PM (#53367855) Homepage
    There are a lot of good arguments for the electoral college voting for Hillary. Lessig lays most of them out. There are also good arguments against (among other issues we don't know if Hillary would have won the popular vote if both she and Trump had been competing to optimize turnout). It is also utterly irrelevant: the electoral college members are primarily bog-standard Republicans, and we've seen in the last few months that most establishment Republicans hate Hillary more than they love their basic ideology and beliefs (whatever Trump stands for, it damn well isn't conservativism by any standard definition of the term). So pushing for this at this juncture is a waste of resources.
    • "A waste of time," enjoys no sane definition in this election cycle context.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      The popular vote is not accurate though. Many states stop counting when a winner is clear and many states don't count the mail-in votes at all unless it's really close. Even so, only three states continued counting giving Clinton almost 1M (1/300) edge according to Politico (not sure where the 2M+ figures come from).

      The reality is that nearly all counties (communities really) in the US voted Republican even in NYS and CA, outside the cities EVERYONE wants Trump by a 80/20 margin. That's why the electoral co

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The Popular Vote doesn't mean anything. At all. For it to mean anything, there would need to have been a binding Popular Vote before the campaign started. The candidates campaigned based on the Electoral Vote system, and would have campaigned differently if the vote was a popular vote. Thus the 'popular vote' numbers are the result for an election campaign that never happened.

        As it stands, the 'Popular Vote' is just something journalists do to get us to buy their publications and watch their 'shows.' I

      • by thrich81 ( 1357561 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @10:41PM (#53368743)

        We've got eight counties in Texas with less than 1000 residents, I'm sure they all went for Trump. On the other hand, Texas has five counties with over a million residents (Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar and Travis). Of those, four of the five went for Clinton. That's in TEXAS. Measuring wins by county is crap unless you are giving the vote to cows and sagebrush. If you do want to rank votes by counties, then measured by economic output, Clinton won the counties nationwide which account for 64% of the USA's economic output (http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/25/presidential-election-economic-split/). So the counties which are actually producing in this country went for Clinton.

      • by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @11:03PM (#53368879)
        Of course they don't stop the counting. The ballots carry far more information than Hillary vs Trump so they have all to be counted in order to count all the other issues in the election. It's just that counting all these ballots takes time so the 100% final result will not be known for some time yet (they have until the 19th of December to count all ballots) at which point the complete result of _all_ ballots will be displayed on http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/elec... [fec.gov]
  • Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by A nonymous Coward ( 7548 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:45PM (#53367865)

    Clinton and Trump campaigned in the swing states because that is what the Electoral College encourages. The popular vote "imbalance" is a mirage. If they had been campaigning for the popular vote, if there had been no Electoral College, the campaigns and the results would have been different in ways we can't imagine.

    To change the Electoral College process now, after the popular vote is over, is sour grapes.

    • Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shane_Optima ( 4414539 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:05PM (#53368003) Journal
      Except what is being proposed here isn't a change. The electoral college would be operating exactly as it has in the past, as it was designed to be able to, and indeed as it was intended: giving the electors the ability to prevent a moronic populist from ascending to the presidency is arguably precisely the entire point of the electoral college. The fact that Hillary won the popular vote by millions is just a happy coincidence.

      You hear that, all you people pro-electoral college people? The very core of the electoral college absolutely gives them the electors the right (barring state law requirements) and the duty to jump ship based on the needs of the country. Don't like it? Then you should support electoral college reform.

      I personally think there are some fairly compelling arguments against this actually happening, but this needs to be said loudly and clearly for all of you smug pro-EC nutters who don't understand what it is what you're actually arguing for: You don't get to dismissively wave away appeals to the popular vote as irrelevant whilst simultaneously rejecting any possibility that the electors might execute their own judgment. Either you are for some form of electoral college reform, or you are completely fine with the possibility that they may yet choose to elect someone other than Donald J. Trump for President.
      • Re:Sour grapes (Score:4, Interesting)

        by blindseer ( 891256 ) <<ten.knilhtrae> <ta> <reesdnilb>> on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:44PM (#53368311)

        It is correct to point out that the electoral college is not constitutionally bound to elect the person on the ballot. That does not mean they must elect Clinton either.

        If not Clinton or Trump then who? I don't know but it would be nice to see candidates that are a bit younger and healthier for one.

        I know I'm not the first to point this out but this tendency for old professional politicians to run is likely a big reason why Trump won. Trump is just as old as Clinton but he appears to be in better health and hasn't been a politician for 50 years like his Republican primary competitors and the Democrat general election competitor. People don't like professional politicians any more, assuming they were ever liked.

    • Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tom ( 822 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @10:05PM (#53368483) Homepage Journal

      Finally someone says it !

      Both candidates went into the race knowing the rules. Crying baby over the "popular vote" is like saying you should've gotten the 100m dash gold medal because your running style was more beautiful. Might be true, but you knew that it's a race for speed when you started.

  • by SensitiveMale ( 155605 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:46PM (#53367869)

    The vote of each state.

    There are many reasons why a straight popular vote is bad and the electoral college is better but the best one I can think of is what happened in the recent election. Hillary Clinton won 300 counties while Trump won 5000. If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities while the rest of the nation is completely ignored, well, you're an idiot.

    • by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:59PM (#53367959) Homepage

      There are two historical elements for why the electoral college was invented. One, discussed by Hamilton in Federalist 68 was to provide a final stopgap against demagogues like Trump http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp [yale.edu]. The second was to give the slave states more power http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar [vox.com] and it should be clear why that shouldn't be ok. As for the argument involving counties: that's just silly. There's no reason that amount of total area won should mean anything at all. Moreover, there's no reason you can reasonably object to cities dominating simply because they happen to be dense areas. Disagreeing with a group doesn't mean you get to use essentially arbitrary criteria to decide you'd like to ignore their wishes.

      There are good arguments against having the electoral college change in this case (especially given that we don't know if Hillary would have won the popular vote if both her campaign and Trump campaign had optimized voter turnout rather than focused on swing states) but trying to make an argument that relies on county number is just awful.

      • by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @11:42PM (#53369087) Homepage

        There's no reason that amount of total area won should mean anything at all. Moreover, there's no reason you can reasonably object to cities dominating simply because they happen to be dense areas. Disagreeing with a group doesn't mean you get to use essentially arbitrary criteria to decide you'd like to ignore their wishes.

        Social and political interests tend to have a heavy coincidence with geography. If you are on the coasts you care way more about the fishing industry than people in the heartland. If you are in a desert you care more about water conservation. If you are near oil and natural gas your livelihood or the livelihood of your neighbors probably depends on the energy industry. By virtue of being in a population dense area, you automatically have a powerful voting block on various area specific issues. What's more, the people in other areas are not your neighbors, you have much less incentive to protect their interests, and are much less likely to hear their anger and complaints when you don't. By and large people from Wisconsin are not going to be able to come and protest march down the streets of LA if California -- 8 x the population of Wisconsin -- decides corn should be taxed to subsidize making action movies.

        The electoral college helps protect various minority populations from being exploited by a tyrannous majority. And that is the main point of our republic, why it is based on constitutional rights, competing branches of government (one of which is not voted on), an electoral college, etc., and super majorities are required to enact any substantial changes. Our government is not a mechanism for enacting the will of the 51% (or even the 60%) on every issue, it is built as a balance of interests which makes the government accountable to the people while also making it fairly difficult for any one group of people to use the government as a cudgel against another group.

    • Let's start by toning down the rhetoric, ok? If you begin by saying "you're an idiot" to anyone who disagrees with you, you've pretty much promised not to listen to anyone else or learn anything. So let's approach this as sensible, rational people (I know, we aren't, if we were we wouldn't be human, but let's at least try) and have a calm, respectful discussion.

      Your position seems to be based on the assumption that geographic units are more important than people. You mention three different ones: states,

  • Alexander Hamilton (Score:3, Informative)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:52PM (#53367905)

    supposedly argued in IIRC The Federalist #68 that one purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent anyone who was unqualified or beholden to a foreign power from becoming President.

    IMO both are applicable now, but defecting electors could set a precedent that might come back and bite us later.

    I can't imagine that Republican electors would defect to Clinton. AIUI, all they have to do is prevent anyone from getting 270 EV, in which case the selection would fall to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The House Democrats might all go for Clinton, and the Republicans would be very divided, but they tend to get in line when the chips are down, so we'd surely get a Republican. Romney would be my best guess, but they might decide that the appearance of legitimacy requires choosing someone who actually ran, maybe Bush or that guy from Utah, or even Pence.

    I don't expect any of that to happen, and I'm trying not to get my hopes up, but then I've been wrong about everything else concerning this election, so who knows...

    As for switching from the Electoral College to the popular vote, the low-population states will be very much against this. I suspect it was designed as a deliberate attempt to keep the high-population states from dominating the low-population states, but now that we have 50 with a great deal of variety, maybe that motivation isn't relevant any more.

    Also, if the EC should be replaced by proportional representation or direct popular vote, where does that leave the Senate? Should it be converted to proportional representation as well? Would it be any good to us if it was just a clone of the House of Representatives?

    • by uncqual ( 836337 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:32PM (#53368195)

      but defecting electors could set a precedent that might come back and bite us later.

      Sort of like some Democrats are now probably regretting Reid saying just a couple weeks before the election that Senate Democrats should exercise the nuclear option (get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees) if Republicans interfered with confirming Clinton's (oops...) SCOTUS nominees. I, however, look forward to Reid speaking out in favor of Republicans when they exercise the nuclear option to prevent Democrats from interfering with Trump's SCOTUS nominees (unless, of course, he happens to be a hypocritical scumbag).

  • So (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JWW ( 79176 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:53PM (#53367917)

    So my rural state will get basically no political say in picking a President?

    Yeah, there's a reason things like the electoral college were set up and it was to give states good reasons for being part of the union.

    If we want to keep dividing the country up into two coasts, and "flyover country", then shit, why talk about getting rid of the Electoral College? Maybe its time to get rid of the entire union.....

    Besides if the country is now made up of groups that hate each others with nearly unbounded passions, an amicable breakup is possibly the best bet.

    Oh and don't worry Millenials in "flyover country" the east and west coast have loads of sanctuary cities and open borders, so you're totally free to go there....

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 )

      So my rural state will get basically no political say in picking a President?

      "no political say"? No. Just a fair share.

      At the moment your rural state has more say over the picking of the President than can be justified based on population, economic output, or any measure other than status quo.

  • by tgibson ( 131396 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @08:59PM (#53367961) Homepage

    Why the Electoral College is a good thing [prageru.com].

    Why the Electoral College is a bad thing [youtube.com].

    Who finds one position more compelling than the other?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:06PM (#53368015)

    The problem isn't Trump, it is all the people who voted for Trump.

    If we take the election back from Trump under the theory that the constitution is not a suicide pact, that won't address the issue of all the people who voted for Trump. In 1824, when electoral college did the same thing to Andrew Jackson (who was a similar combination of demagoguery, narcissism and ignorance) the result was counterproductive. Adams was selected by congress over Jackson. But was a very ineffective president because the circumstances of his selection negated any mandate to lead.

    However the effect of "taking" the election from Jackson was to hypermotivate people who had previously been lukewarm or neutral and 4 years later Jackson won handily. He then went on to do all the terrible things people were worried about but now he had a lot of support not for his policies but as a reaction to what happened in 1824. So despite fucking up, he was still elected for a second term.

    We are faced with no good choices with Trump. Just lesser evils. Nobody can see the future, but an unpopular Trump entering office today, with no honeymoon period and the press raring to hold him accountable could be a lot better than a popular Trump (or Ivanka) entering office 4 years from now.

    I wish a knew for sure.

  • by HanzoSpam ( 713251 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:08PM (#53368021)

    If we're going to go for the popular vote, we can just wait for California to vote and let them decide who's going to be president. Save the rest of the states the trouble of running elections.

  • by Zobeid ( 314469 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:18PM (#53368083)

    I'm not a fan of the Electoral College, and I'd be pleased to see it go away. However. . .

    The shortcomings of the Electoral College are *trivial* in comparison with the broken and dysfunctional primary system that gave us Clinton and Trump as our major-party candidates. It's utter madness. That's where we should focus our reform efforts.

    • by jsm300 ( 669719 ) on Sunday November 27, 2016 @12:12AM (#53369263)

      Agree 100% that it is utter madness. I'm a Republican and I'm aghast that the party chose Trump. Both parties chose terrible candidates, and the ones running in the primaries weren't all that great either.

      However, I don't agree that there is something that can (or should) be done from outside the parties to reform them. I have to believe that sooner or later something will give. The problem is that more and more people are leaving both parties, with independent voters reaching the highest percentages ever. What that results in is the remaining members getting more and more radical, with the parties finding less and less common ground. And it doesn't appear that things will get better as the Democrats look to get more radical after the results of this election. It's going to be harder and harder for a candidate to appeal to the remaining party members to get nominated, and then appeal to the more moderate independents.

      Each party needs to come back to recognizing that they need to also appeal to the independent voters. Instead the independent voters get left with a choice of two terrible candidates. It's hard to imagine the two party system breaking down, but I feel we are on that path. If the current parties keep getting more extreme I feel that there will eventually be a movement for a new more moderate party (I doubt that any of the existing third parties will fill that void). In my opinion, perhaps the "Rational Party" would be a good name. :)

  • NO to popular vote (Score:5, Informative)

    by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:18PM (#53368087) Journal

    That becomes the tyranny of the majority. In fact, in this election, the entire lead that Hillary has is covered by her lead in Los Angeles County. Basically a single county dictates the entire election of the President? Sucks if you live anywhere else, huh...

    Instead of a popular vote, do like Nebraska and Maine. Proportional votes. Each district gets their own winner - and the overall State winner gets the two extra electoral votes. Eliminate "winner take all" - that is the TRUE discrimination. Let each district vote how it wants and cast its own elector.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:20PM (#53368103)

    I need to show various forms of ID to open a bank account or buy a beer.

    Right now all I have to do to vote in my state is to simply say who I am and where I live.

    I find this a bit ridiculous regardless whether it's the electoral college or popular vote.

  • Consistency Alert (Score:5, Insightful)

    by uncqual ( 836337 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:23PM (#53368117)

    On the one hand, Lessig relies (correctly) on the fact that the Constitution places no restrictions on how electors vote and that it was expected that they would be citizens exercising judgement.

    On the other hand, he disagrees with a very fundamental feature of the Constitution -- that states, by the fact they are states, have power beyond just the mass of their population. This is directly evidenced in the Constitution as it defines how the Electoral College and Senate work. The Founders felt so strongly that each state have an equal vote in the Senate independent of the population of the state that the ONLY thing that can't be amended in the Constitution with approval of ¾ of the states (NO state can lose equal suffrage in the Senate without approval of that state).

    It seems quite odd to rely on the Constitution for one argument and then completely dismiss one of its most fundamental concepts that protected the less populous states from being run roughshod over at the Federal level by the more populous states. One might go so far as to label such a viewpoint as hypocritical.

    • by reboot246 ( 623534 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:34PM (#53368211) Homepage
      The Constitution goes even further. The state legislatures could choose the electors and not even let the people vote on them. The Supreme Court has already ruled that no one has a Constitutional right to vote for President.

      Any time you read the word "state" think "country", because that's exactly what the states are, semi-independent countries bound together with a central federal government. The Constitution was written to limit the power of the central government and actually left most power with the states and people. Kinda turned upside down now, isn't it? See our point?
  • by superwiz ( 655733 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:29PM (#53368163) Journal
    It would be one thing if he genuinely didn't get it. But he knows he is wrong and he makes the argument anyway. State laws is what obligates members of the electoral college to vote proportionately or winner-take-all. If states wanted to, they could change their laws through state legislatures. Lessig's argument is that the members of the electoral college should break the law. And, as a law professor, he knows it. As for whether or not the law should be changed, the electoral college acts as a check on corruption. If a certain locality decides to game the system by having a lot of fake votes, there is very little to stop it after the candidate takes office. Currently such a locality would only effect he votes of one state. Without electoral college, it would effect the vote count nation-wide. And, again as a law professor, Lessig knows this.
  • The real sham (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fred911 ( 83970 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:30PM (#53368181)

    is how the media twists and contorts just about every news item lately to paint the President Elect in a negative manner. Either liberal views or an attempt to stay relevant in this day and age, either way it's just sickening.
      Face the facts, the liberal opinion and political agenda doesn't work and the people have voted as such. Media as we knew it is just getting lost in the noise that is the internet. Intelligent people are able to see the difference between signal and noise no matter how much noise the liberal media produces.

      Whereas our political system isn't perfect, its better than any in history and people are more intelligent than the media.

  • by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:50PM (#53368361)

    These people want to scrap the system that has been in place since the whole thing began because things didn't turn out in their favor ?

    It seems that the current generation just can't handle defeat ( they've been insulated against it their entire lives ) so when things don't go
    their way, the best course of action is to loudly demand that the rules be changed ? If that doesn't work, organize protests and maybe
    cry on camera a bit ? Perhaps hire a celebrity to be " The voice for the unheard " or some other silly attention seeking behavior.

    Welcome to reality kids. Where life is cold, uncaring, unfair and, occasionally, absolutely horrific.
    By the time you become an adult, we've flat run out of consolation and / or participation prizes.
    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

    So strap yourselves in, because it's going to be a rough ride.

    For anyone who argues Trump supporters would be doing the same thing were the situation reversed, I call out your bullshit and will say
    it's pure speculation on your part. Right now the only folks who are actively participating in the riots and general stupidity are those who
    claim to be the " more educated, intelligent and / or informed " than those " Deplorable " Trump Supporters ( Hillary's description of them I believe ).

    I don't recall any of this sort of bullshit when Obama got elected.
    ( Or any President in recent history for that matter. Republican or Democrat )

    So, other than dealing with the most coddled, spoiled, insulated and catered-to generation of all time, what do you believe has changed to
    cause such behavior issues from the very folks who own words claim intellectual superiority over everyone else, while their actions say otherwise ?

  • by Tom ( 822 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @09:57PM (#53368417) Homepage Journal

    So very funny. There were eight years of Obama rule during which all of these reforms could have been at least attempted. Funny how now that their favorite candidate lost everyone is coming out of the woodworks complaining about the system and asking for reforms.

    Sorry guys. The proper moment to request reforms if you are really worried that the system is broken is after your favorite candidate won.

    This way, it just looks like a lot of "bwuahaha, my side lost an election, that is sooo unffaaaaiiiiirrrr".

    I respect Lawrence, once had a short phone conversation with him on another topic. I agree that the US political system is completely broken and needs wholesale replacement. I don't think this is the right way and the right time to do it.

  • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Saturday November 26, 2016 @10:12PM (#53368531)
    If Clinton had won the Electoral College but Trump had won the popular vote, would you have taken the time to write up an op-ed outlining the flaws of the Electoral College, would you have protested in the streets, would you be demanding Trump be made President? If not, then you are simply being partisan, and your support for this is out of self-interest rather than truly wishing to improve the system.

    Someone truly wishing to reform the Electoral College would be for such reform regardless of who won. If you truly believe a change is for the better, you support it even when it works against your own self interests [cnn.com]. I think Merkley made a mistake dismantling one of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put into the system to prevent a simple majority from having too much power, but I respect him for not changing his position even though he now finds himself on the disadvantaged side of his rule change.

    (And if you're one of the people who believe Merkley's rule change was necessary because the Republicans were stonewalling in the Senate, the Washington Post keeps a database of how often each Senator votes with his/her party. Here are the stats for the 108th [washingtonpost.com], 109th [washingtonpost.com], 110th [washingtonpost.com], 111th [washingtonpost.com], 112th [washingtonpost.com], and 113th [washingtonpost.com] Senates, spanning 2002-2015 with Senate control by both parties, covering both a Republican President and Democrat President. Click on the Party column to sort it by Senators most likely to vote for their party. You'll see it's actually the Democrats who most frequently vote as a block, and the Republicans who are more willing to cross the party line. The meme that Republicans refused to compromise was fake news spread by the mainstream media without any statistical evidence to back it up.)
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Sunday November 27, 2016 @06:04PM (#53373209)

    What the leftists want is a system that is rigged so that they always win.

    Before the election, both dems and repubs wanted the electoral college.

    Why wasn't this professor making an issue of the electoral college *before* the election?

A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth

Working...