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

251–260 of 932 posts

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

#251

Post by _bxg1 »

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…

> the only thing that really gives rural territories any stake

Whatever percentage of the population they make up, that's the stake they'll get (and the amount of accountability the politicians will have to them). What's wrong with that?

I guess when we're talking about actual campaign tours there might be some neglect that happens because of the logistics of physical travel. Although I have to question the real benefit of those visits to the citizens. They benefit the politicians themselves, but they aren't exactly a vital source of information in a world with the internet.

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

#252

Post by golemiprague »

munk-a wrote: post #150

The Connecticut Compromise is good and all, but I think it's about time we discard it as an artifact of the days when communication was difficult and states had expectations around operating as semi-autonomous bodies. States used to be a strong identity tie than the nation but our general mindset has shifted toward identifying as Americans before Delawareans.

Communication is good but the control of the communication and the media is in the coasts. All the media organisations and all the social networks are sitting in the coasts and run by people with a certain political agendas. I am actually amazed how relevant the idea of electoral college is even today. It gives people with no voice the power they deserve as it did 200 years ago.

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

#253

Post by gnulinux »

cheez wrote: post #127
baddox wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> National Popular Vote (NPV) would reward states with lax election laws - the higher the turnout, legal or not, the more power for that state. Illegal voting is already illegal, and states can already in theory do shady things in their elections (and some probably already do). The courts should absolutely go after this, and I don't see NPV really changing this. > The NPV system focus the most energy on states with a…

The reason the United States are United is because there was a uniform consideration. You'll be seeing states secede as there will be no benefit for them to remain.

Honest question: how realistic is it for small states like Wyoming to secede from US if this system changes. I strongly suspect the probability is close to impossible.

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

#254

Post by kirrent »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #93

>On Tuesday, Nevada became the latest state to pass a bill that would grant its electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote across the country, not just in Nevada. The movement is the brainchild of John Koza, a co-founder of National Popular Vote, an organization that is working to eliminate the influence of the Electoral College. I don't think this will survive constitutional challenge, because it is not the vo…

> I don't think this will survive constitutional challenge, because it is not the voters of the state who are deciding how the state's electors are decided.

Is this US constitutional law or Nevada constitutional law that I'm not familiar with? There's no law I'm familiar with against faithless electors and Ray v. Blair made it clear that states are allowed to exclude electors if they won't pledge their support a certain way. Finally, article 2 clause 2 of the US constitution gives fairly broad leeway on how states assign their electors.

I could be mistaken though. Outside observers from other countries often are.

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

#255

Post by AnimalMuppet »

creaghpatr wrote: post #79
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.

Definitely, for the Senate, I don't mind unlimited in the house since they are up for reelection every two years.

No, there are several members of the House that have passed their sell-by date.

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

#256

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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.

This doesn't effect politicians other than Presidential candidates, and doesn't effect territories (rural or otherwise) because those get no votes in Presidential elections. Though moving to a national popular votes in the states proper could be the first step to a national popular vote of US Citizens, which would give Presidential candidates a reason to campaign in territories.

Also, as long as there is a Senate and Presidential candidates are seen to have electoral coattails, there will be an incentive for Presidential candidates to campaign in low-population states.

Also, the association of low-population states with “rural areas” is wrong: California has a rural population about equal to the total population of South Dakota; Texas—the second most populated state—has the largest rural population, bigger than the total population of South Dakota and the four smaller states; North Carolina and Pennsylvania (also top 10 population states) have rural populations that also each exceed the total population of several of the smallest states combined.

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

#257

Post by pdonis »

_vertigo wrote: post #236
pdonis wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

> No one mentioned federal benefits.

Sure you did; you said LAC voters don't have their concerns addressed as well because they are part of a large, populous state whose EC votes count for less per capita. My question is, if LAC is capable of managing its own affairs, why does it care?

In other words, you're assuming that the President's job is to "take care of everyone's concerns", so everyone needs an equal vote to elect the President. That seems to me to be absurd. The President's job is to faithfully execute the laws and to make executive decisions about national needs like defense and foreign policy. It's not to address the individual concerns of every voter or the local concerns of every city, county, etc.

Similar remarks apply to the Federal government more generally. The fact that everyone takes it for granted now that the Federal government is supposed to address everyone's concerns is a sign of how corrupt and inefficient our system has become. Everyone judges their Senators and Representatives, not according to how well they take care of national issues, but how much pork they send home.

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

#258

Post by wyldfire »

vonmoltke wrote: post #235
pfisch wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IIRC this behavior is per-state and some (Maine or NH maybe?) do just that.

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

#259

Post by _bxg1 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #212
_bxg1 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll mostly balance out I think, and even if it doesn't, that's hardly the point

No, it kind of is the point. Democrats aren't doing this because it's more fair , they're doing it because they think they'll win more elections.

But regardless of what forces are actually pushing for it, it is more fair.

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

#260

Post by _bxg1 »

munk-a wrote: post #185
_bxg1 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some states - mostly red ones - that isn't true. Texans still identify primarily with their state. That said, it's still a stupid reason for giving fewer people more votes. There is no reasonable argument for that, no matter which way you slice it.

Eeeeh... Texan's have a lot of state pride - but try confusing a Texan for a Delawarean vs. confusing a Texan with a Canadian or Kiwi - pretty sure the Texan will be more offended with either of those later confusions if they've got that weird patriotism streak.

Not if you confuse them with a Californian.
Post reply on HN