Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Will the US electoral voting system ever change?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: Ask HN: Will the US electoral voting system ever change?

#21

Post by chdsbd »

hga wrote: post #20
exabrial wrote: post #15

I feel like if we eliminated the Electoral College, presidential candidates would only visit areas like La New York City Boston Chicago Atlanta to teach the maximum number of voters. Instead of removing it, are there ways we can improve it?

Bingo, and this has been thoroughly analyzed. The election would reduce to 8-10 urban areas, which also makes cheating a lot easier. While we're at it, why don't we remove the other part of the great compromise that gave each state 2 Senators (#electors = #of House of Representative Members + 2) And that's one reason it'll never happen, you won't get enough state legislatures to vote their states out of relevance.

I'm curious. Why do you say this would make cheating easier?

Re: Ask HN: Will the US electoral voting system ever change?

#22

Post by yaks_hairbrush »

A lot of comments here are referencing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). If it ever comes to fruition, it would be a rather clever hack to get around needing a constitutional amendment to change/abolish the electoral college.

Don't get too optimistic about it going places, though. We've got three types of states these days: red states, swing states, and blue states. Let's look at incentives:

Blue states are the only ones to go for NPVIC so far, and it's easy to see the incentive: Blue states have twice in the last 20 years seen their candidate get more votes than the other and lose anyway. So far, blue states have contributed 165 electoral votes to the effort, and could maybe contribute another 17 or so (CT, OR, DE).

Swing states are not incentivized to go for NPVIC. Presidential campaigns bring lots of money to swing states. Swing states have contributed 0 EVs so far, and according to Wikipedia three such states are considering it: AZ, PA, MI. I expect each of these to fail. It would be big news if any succeeded.

Red states: They've seen their preferred candidate win while getting outvoted twice in the last 20 years. They currently see the NPVIC as Democrats asking for a rule-change to make it easier for them to win. I could see red states start to go for this if a Republican loses while getting more votes. Until that happens, the red-state contribution to the NPVIC will at or near 0 EV.

Re: Ask HN: Will the US electoral voting system ever change?

#23

Post by hga »

chdsbd wrote: post #21
hga wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo, and this has been thoroughly analyzed. The election would reduce to 8-10 urban areas, which also makes cheating a lot easier. While we're at it, why don't we remove the other part of the great compromise that gave each state 2 Senators (#electors = #of House of Representative Members + 2) And that's one reason it'll never happen, you won't get enough state legislatures to vote their states out of relevance.

I'm curious. Why do you say this would make cheating easier?

Many many fewer precincts and political domains.

The US has a total of 3,143 counties or equivalents per Wikipedia, obviously divided between 50 states and D.C., each a separate political domain, both counties and states. Corrupting enough of those under the Electoral College's constraints is a lot harder.

Re: Ask HN: Will the US electoral voting system ever change?

#24

Post by tbrock »

exabrial wrote: post #15

I feel like if we eliminated the Electoral College, presidential candidates would only visit areas like La New York City Boston Chicago Atlanta to teach the maximum number of voters. Instead of removing it, are there ways we can improve it?

Instead, today they mostly visit swing states. Is that any better?

Re: Ask HN: Will the US electoral voting system ever change?

#25

Post by LeanderK »

yaks_hairbrush wrote: post #22

A lot of comments here are referencing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). If it ever comes to fruition, it would be a rather clever hack to get around needing a constitutional amendment to change/abolish the electoral college. Don't get too optimistic about it going places, though. We've got three types of states these days: red states, swing states, and blue states. Let's look at incentives: Blue…

if i read it right, its really clever but also not very nice to the other states.

For the NPVIC not every state has to join it, it comes active when the states that joined the NPVIC have a majority of the electors. Then the electors do not vote according to who won their state, but to who won overall. So if the democratic states and enough swing states all sign the NPVIC to get to 270 electors, they changed the rules of the game.

There is an realistic chance for it to succeed. I wouldn't give it 84% ;) But it's not impossible.

Re: Ask HN: Will the US electoral voting system ever change?

#27

Post by exabrial »

chdsbd wrote: post #21
hga wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo, and this has been thoroughly analyzed. The election would reduce to 8-10 urban areas, which also makes cheating a lot easier. While we're at it, why don't we remove the other part of the great compromise that gave each state 2 Senators (#electors = #of House of Representative Members + 2) And that's one reason it'll never happen, you won't get enough state legislatures to vote their states out of relevance.

I'm curious. Why do you say this would make cheating easier?

For a cheater, these are lucrative areas: Areas with low income and education rates, where the populace doesn't typically vote. Stuffing the box won't go noticed due to low election turnout.

In Kansas, we have a system to prevent ballot stuffing. You must show state or federal issued ID. Your name must be in the pollbook for the location and pre-registered before election day.

They have two areas: The first, you show your ID and they check your entry in the location's pollbook. The fact that you showed up to vote along with the ID you presented is recorded electronically statewide and is public information instantly.

They then print an anonymous "voting ticket" and you're taking to a separate area or room. A smart card is exchanged for your voting ticket is put into an air-gapped system and you cast your ballot. Your smart card is removed and tallied on a third air-gapped system. When the poll closes, the tally machine is handed over to the county.

This system makes it nearly impossible to stuff the box, because the number of votes cast at a location cannot exceed the number of IDs presented at the checkin location. It doesn't protect from changing votes, which would require a much more sophisticated attack on the machines themselves.

It's not perfect, but it is fairly good at stopping unsophisticated opportunistic attackers. I would feel much better if all of the USA adopted such a protocol if we go to a popular vote, but that's unlikely to happen, so I can't say I'm comfortable moving away from the electoral college either.

Re: Ask HN: Will the US electoral voting system ever change?

#28

Post by iaskwhy »

Not exactly what's being asked but I've seen some people (a lot?) incorrectly implying Clinton got more than half the votes. In reality, at the moment, 52.3% didn't vote for her. This is relevant in the sense that in some voting systems a presidential election in which the winning candidate gets One thing which is usually not discussed is the advantages of some systems where the most voted candidate or party don't win the election like FPTP in the UK.

Re: Ask HN: Will the US electoral voting system ever change?

#29

Post by maxerickson »

exabrial wrote: post #27
chdsbd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious. Why do you say this would make cheating easier?

For a cheater, these are lucrative areas: Areas with low income and education rates, where the populace doesn't typically vote. Stuffing the box won't go noticed due to low election turnout. In Kansas, we have a system to prevent ballot stuffing. You must show state or federal issued ID. Your name must be in the pollbook for the location and pre-registered before election day. They have two areas: The first, you show…

Wait, what states don't use election rolls (id checks do vary by state)?

I'm a lot happier with paper ballots + electronic tabulation than I am with electronic ballots, what do you think those parts of the process you describe are adding?

Re: Ask HN: Will the US electoral voting system ever change?

#30

Post by hga »

maxerickson wrote: post #29
exabrial wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a cheater, these are lucrative areas: Areas with low income and education rates, where the populace doesn't typically vote. Stuffing the box won't go noticed due to low election turnout. In Kansas, we have a system to prevent ballot stuffing. You must show state or federal issued ID. Your name must be in the pollbook for the location and pre-registered before election day. They have two areas: The first, you show…

Wait, what states don't use election rolls (id checks do vary by state)? I'm a lot happier with paper ballots + electronic tabulation than I am with electronic ballots, what do you think those parts of the process you describe are adding?

Right now it's nearly impossible to clean election rolls of dead etc. voters, e.g. the Feds fight this hard.

However, state and Federal issued IDs have a subsidiary feature, perhaps even more important that on the spot election verification now that I think about it, in that they expire, and I'm sure some of them also have revocation measures after the ID holder dies. This is much more true for people moving.

Agreed on the paper ballot + electronic counting, and very glad my county in neighboring Missouri uses that system, I never trusted the totally electronic or electromechanical systems I used in Arlington, VA or Brookline, MA

Post reply on HN