(11-06-2020, 01:05 AM)Mav link Wrote:That is how the lame duck session has been used recently. But the original reason for it was to allow firstly the Electoral College and then Congress to assemble at a time when the horse was the fastest mode of transport. In a large country that was keen to expand, it was necessary to allow a lot of time for travel.
The extended lame duck period is a relic of the past and should be ditched. If the Electoral College were abolished and the President were to be elected solely on the nationwide popular vote, the President would assume power on certification of results.
I guess the problem with simply declaring it on a population vote is similar to the problem we face, and overcome with our electorates and then the PM being determined by the party that wins most of those.
A population only vote would be heavily weighted to the opinions of the folks in the big cities and big states.
We'd all wish "we could be California girls."
The US House and Senate offsets that to some extent and would give some representation to the rural areas but the Presidential race would largely depend on the big population areas.
We've seen it to a large extent in this election where a mass of Red in a state has been cancelled by a small patch of Blue in a major city.
The major problem seems to be that there is such a variation in State 'procedures' and 'rules' in terms of conducting the elections.
I'm also wondering about the level of two-party scrutineering, whether it existed and how that also varied from State to State.
If that was properly in place, Trump's dubious claims will quickly be shot down.

