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

231–240 of 932 posts

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

#231

Post by Aunche »

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…

This would make a lot more sense of the federal government were a lot weaker and state government a lot stronger, like it was originally. As it stands now, the President governs over the people far more than it governs over the state, so the people should get to choose the President, not the states.

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

#232

Post by jgeada »

theli0nheart wrote: post #152
thomascgalvin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint to that is that the Electoral College has transferred so much power to rural areas that we are no longer an actual representative democracy. For example, a vote in Wyoming counts 3.6 times more than a vote in California.[1] The people in California are not represented in the Presidential election; it would be more accurate to say that one-quarter of the people in California are represented. "Rural is…

> There are only eight states in America that have more people than Los Angeles county.[2] Why are the concerns of the people living in LAC less important than the concerns of the people in Nevada or Arkansas? What is it about their geography that makes their issues unimportant? Why would Arkansas or Nevada have joined a union of states where their votes mean essentially nothing?

Because Arkansas or Nevada are only really viable economic entities when supported by the much more productive states like California or New York.

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

#233

Post by munk-a »

mc32 wrote: post #219
thomascgalvin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint to that is that the Electoral College has transferred so much power to rural areas that we are no longer an actual representative democracy. For example, a vote in Wyoming counts 3.6 times more than a vote in California.[1] The people in California are not represented in the Presidential election; it would be more accurate to say that one-quarter of the people in California are represented. "Rural is…

This is somewhat balanced by representation in the other house of Congress. It’s not only the US which has to balance rural vs urban electorates. Some are even further down the spectrum like Japan where rural areas have even larger influence than cities compared to other democracies. But in a way it makes sense. Without people in the countryside the people in the cities would have little to eat. Most countries go to…

> But in a way it makes sense. Without people in the countryside the people in the cities would have little to eat. Most countries go to some lengths to ensure some modicum of food security/self-sufficiency.

This argument would be accurate if we lived in a mercantile oriented world still, but there are plenty of countries that are entirely on other countries for basic necessities. While I can sympathize with the fact that farmers have gotten the rough end of the stick from seed corporations (like Monsanto) lately and that they have been forced into incredibly thin profit margins their work isn't inherently more valuable because it results in edible objects.

There are plenty of countries out there with a net import of food like the UAE, Germany, Russian, Japan, Egypt and Venezuela - that's a pretty diverse group of varying GDP per capita and political stability so I think it's pretty safe to dismiss any concerns of a strategic food reserve.

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

#234

Post by factotvm »

mc32 wrote: post #219
thomascgalvin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint to that is that the Electoral College has transferred so much power to rural areas that we are no longer an actual representative democracy. For example, a vote in Wyoming counts 3.6 times more than a vote in California.[1] The people in California are not represented in the Presidential election; it would be more accurate to say that one-quarter of the people in California are represented. "Rural is…

This is somewhat balanced by representation in the other house of Congress. It’s not only the US which has to balance rural vs urban electorates. Some are even further down the spectrum like Japan where rural areas have even larger influence than cities compared to other democracies. But in a way it makes sense. Without people in the countryside the people in the cities would have little to eat. Most countries go to…

You imply people in the countryside own the means of producing food, but the consolidation of agriculture tells a different story.

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

#235

Post by vonmoltke »

pfisch wrote: post #148
zaroth wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, there are many issues where California can wag the dog by instituting state-specific policies which effectively drag the whole country with it. Some people like what California does with its state-specific policies. Some people even choose to live there. If the Executive branch was less powerful and the States retained more of what they were originally intended to oversee for themselves, I might have less…

Because of the EC I would argue that in most states, including California, your vote effectively doesn't matter at all. Unless you are in a purple state you basically don't have a vote, and politicians can ignore your entire State. So while the EC does empower some rural voters, in reality it effectively disenfranchises most of the country.

That's not an argument against the Electoral College per se, but rather an argument against letting states allocate all of their Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote. This particular problem could be solved by forcing all states to apportion their Electoral College votes based on the distribution of the popular vote.

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

#236

Post by _vertigo »

pdonis wrote: post #206
thomascgalvin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint to that is that the Electoral College has transferred so much power to rural areas that we are no longer an actual representative democracy. For example, a vote in Wyoming counts 3.6 times more than a vote in California.[1] The people in California are not represented in the Presidential election; it would be more accurate to say that one-quarter of the people in California are represented. "Rural is…

> "Rural issues" do not deserve special protection if that protection results in a tyranny of the minority. "Tyranny of the minority" gets this issue exactly backwards. The problem the Electoral College was designed to mitigate is a tyranny of the majority . > Why are the concerns of the people living in LAC less important than the concerns of the people in Nevada or Arkansas? What is it about their geography that ma…

> "Tyranny of the minority" gets this issue exactly backwards. The problem the Electoral College was designed to mitigate is a tyranny of the majority.

The point they're making is that while it was designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority, it goes too far and results in a tyranny of the minority.

> Why do any of these concerns need Federal intervention to solve? Why can't LAC and Arkansas and Nevada manage their own affairs? I understand rare emergencies like natural disasters require pooling national resources, but everyone talks now as if no locality at all can survive from day to day without Federal benefits.

No one mentioned federal benefits. We are talking about the relative voting power of a voter in one area versus another in the presidential election. Let's not get distracted here.

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

#237

Post by NeoBasilisk »

flyingfences wrote: post #147
LargeWu wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Spatial metaphors are not illustrative. Please give some examples of what you mean.

The Senate alone has the power to confirm every judge in the entire judicial branch. The House has absolutely no say in any of that.

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

#238

Post by sparrc »

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…

rural territories still have the senate to balance things out.

counter-point is that the political stake is currently being taken away from people who live in large states, and is thus negatively affecting the most amount of people possible.

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

#239

Post by NeoBasilisk »

ska wrote: post #146
dragonwriter wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century. The House reapportions by population after each census (10 years), with the exception of the notable failure after the 1920 Census. The House hasn't increased total size since the reapportionment after the 1910 census, which is probably what you are thinking of.

> The House hasn't increased total size since the reapportionment after the 1910 census, which is probably what you are thinking of. Doesn't this effectively make it impossible to correctly reapportion by population though, because without a change in size a number of low population states "should" have < 1 member?

That is correct.

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

#240

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mikeash wrote: post #189
akulbe wrote: post #43

I could not be more opposed to the abolishment of the Electoral College. The founders had a very good rationale for putting it in. That said... I think there's a solution for this. Hard term limits for everyone, in all the branches. It already exists for the Executive branch. I think it should be instituted for both Legislative and Judicial as well.

The rationale for the EC and every other compromise in the Constitution was simple: it’s what was required to get the states to actually sign up. There was the very real possibility that the individual states would go their own way if they didn’t like the proposed Constitution. Larger states could have easily decided that they didn’t need to be part of a larger country. Smaller states could have easily decided that t…

That's fair. We have a set of rules, and the rationale for many of them is gone. Therefore... what?

Throw them all out? If so, replace them with what? Worse: How do you get everyone to agree on what to replace them with?

As it turns out, there's a mechanism for getting everyone to agree, and to prevent changes that everyone does not agree with (for certain values of "everyone"): Amend the Constitution.

Post reply on HN