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

15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 932 posts

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#81

Post by henryfjordan »

not_a_moth wrote: post #15

An argument I heard recently against this is, if abolished, politicians won't have incentives to campaign in rural territories, and they won't be accountable to rural territories. That basically makes sense. The EC is the only thing that really gives rural territories any stake, as the majority population has shifted to larger urban centers. People who want to get away from the big cities and live a different kind of…

I understand pre-industrial revolution why we needed to make sure rural voters got a little boost. Back then 50%+ of the population was agrarian. Now it's 0.3%. You can go to wal-mart anywhere. The main difference in your lifestyle across regions is determined by local politics, not national ones.

Since almost everyone lives in a quasi-suburbia in america now, who exactly needs protecting? Why does someone in North Dakota deserve more of a say than someone in california these days?

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#83

Post by smolsky »

wishinghorse wrote: post #32
dlbucci wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for rural representation, but people in rural areas essentially have their vote count more than people in cities, right? Cause that's the current system for us: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_w...

Yes, that's the point. Adjust votes' "weight" based on population density.

...and adjustments have been happening over many decades. That's why, say, California has many more electoral votes (55) than Montana (3). Yet it's still not completely proportional as California has about 40M people while Montana has just over 1M.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#84

Post by jeanperrot »

m0zg wrote: post #51
outside1234 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if he had won the popular vote, then fine, he is the winner. All this is asking is 1 person 1 vote.

This would lead to e.g. Wyoming being run by California though. I'm sure Wyomingites would totally love that.

Wyoming gets 3 votes in the electoral college, California gets 55 - I am not sure what point you are making.

The net effect of the electoral college is that the president is effectively picked by the voters of a handful of swing states. Wyoming is not one of these swing states.

Removing the electoral college would lead to the president being picked by the voters of all states, which seems a lot better.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#85

Post by dragonwriter »

GeekyBear wrote: post #78
NoodleIncident wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a flawed argument, because the House isn't proportional to population, either. It's _still_ weighted towards smaller, emptier states.

All states get at least one House member. Should some states have zero?

No, but the total number should not have been fixed in 1929 to stop continued increase (and thereby accelerate inequality in representation.)

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#86

Post by 033803throwaway »

If trump is re-elected it may be the last time a republican wins a presidential election in the current system, due to demographic changes in key states (FL, TX, NC, etc.)

If the electoral college is abolished, it could actually end up getting another few republicans elected, since it would incentivize republican turnout in solidly democratic states like California.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#87

Post by jayd16 »

m0zg wrote: post #51
outside1234 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if he had won the popular vote, then fine, he is the winner. All this is asking is 1 person 1 vote.

This would lead to e.g. Wyoming being run by California though. I'm sure Wyomingites would totally love that.

Another way to look at it is California conservatives and Wyoming liberals would finally have a voice.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#88

Post by LargeWu »

NoodleIncident wrote: post #58
flyingfences wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the explicit purpose of the Senate: each state is equal in the union. Senators weren't even supposed to represent the state's people; they represented the state itself up until the misguided Seventeenth Amendment. Representation proportional to the population is the purpose of the House - that's why our government has two chambers.

This is a flawed argument, because the House isn't proportional to population, either. It's _still_ weighted towards smaller, emptier states.

Also, the two chambers are not equal. The Senate is very clearly the upper chamber.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#89

Post by jonathankoren »

chuckdries wrote: post #24
not_a_moth wrote: post #15

An argument I heard recently against this is, if abolished, politicians won't have incentives to campaign in rural territories, and they won't be accountable to rural territories. That basically makes sense. The EC is the only thing that really gives rural territories any stake, as the majority population has shifted to larger urban centers. People who want to get away from the big cities and live a different kind of…

Right now it's the opposite > People who want to get away from the ~big cities~ small towns and live a different kind of life with different priorities (and different legislative interests), shouldn't be totally shut out, should they? Even though I live in a ~giant urban area~ rural area, I wouldn't want to feel pressured to due so due to lack of political stake if I move elsewhere. who's to say one direction is more…

To reinforce this idea, my city has 3x the population of Wyoming.

I grew up rural, but I long ago moved to an urban life. Politicians — and to be honest rural folk themselves — often try to enforce the idea that rural life is somehow more genuine. You’ll hear this as “Real America”, or how city folks don’t understand how “the Real World works”, or are some how “out of touch”. Which is fundamentally a completely bizarre idea when the majority of Americans (and I believe the world in general now) live an urban life. While there are unique and legitimate concerns that may need to be addressed for rural life, they are not mainstream concerns. Similarly, allowing rural politics and social mores to dominate national politics is as absurd as saying the Sentinelese[0] should dominate world culture because they’re more in touch with the land or something.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#90

Post by peapicker »

eunoia wrote: post #62
acomjean wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electoral college is for the presidency. But the political power discrepancy between rural and urban areas is quite stark in other branches of government. For example: Right now in the US there are 2 senators from each state. California with a population of over 39 million has 2 senators, Alaska with a population around 700,000 also has 2 senators.

> Alaska with a population around 700,000 also has 2 senators As does: 1. Wyoming (Population: 572,381) 2. Vermont (Population: 627,180) 3. Alaska (Population: 735,720) 4. North Dakota (Population: 760,900) 5. South Dakota (Population: 892,631) 6. Delaware (Population: 975,033) 7. Rhode Island (Population: 1,056,738) 8. Montana (Population: 1,074,532) 9. Maine (Population: 1,342,097) 10. New Hampshire (Population: 1,…

"But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century."

Not sure where you live, but since 1914 in Colorado:

1914 - four representatives

1973 - five representatives

1983 - six representatives

2003 - seven representatives

So clearly seats are added as population changes in a state.

See also: https://www.insightsassociation.org/article/states-expected-...

Post reply on HN