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

371–380 of 932 posts

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

#371

Post by TylerE »

maratd wrote: post #353
TylerE wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the whole “visiting” thing is overblown. We have TV and the Internet. This isn’t the 19th century when the only way the average American might EVER see or hear a President would be a short speech off the back of a train car.

Nobody cares about visiting. They can craft their policies to entirely exclude or screw over states that aren't worth their time. For example, favor specific industries over others that are heavy in one state vs another. They'll do that anyway, but may think twice if they need to build a coalition of smaller states vs just winning the popular vote.

If it takes about visiting why to the campaigns spend so damn much time in Iowa?

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

#372

Post by 0xB31B1B »

anon1m0us wrote: post #358
hyperpape wrote: post #302

There are discussions about the electoral college favoring small states. Some people think that's bad, some people think it's good. However, there's a more important issue: that's not really what the electoral college does. It gives a small edge to small states[0]. The much bigger effect is that in every given election, it favors a handful of battleground states over all the rest. If you live in Wyoming, the electora…

You should be careful about the word "small" here. What you mean is least populous, but geographically, they are large. Thus, the question is: Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? If you eliminate the electoral college you give political control of resources to those who have absolutely NO physical control of those resources and yet still s…

To be fair, the primary cause of the decimation of Louisiana is it’s state government.

I would also add that the resources of the country belong to all of us, not just those who live in close proximity (aka the same state).

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

#373

Post by AnimalMuppet »

burkaman wrote: post #309
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the problem here is that you're portraying it as if cities or states are the agents making decisions, rather than individuals. That was exactly the point of the Electoral College - that states would elect the president. You may think that's a bad idea. That's fine. You may want to change it. But it's a really fundamental change to the architecture. If it's to be changed, it should be changed by a constituti…

No, that was not the point, why do people keep saying this? The framers were very open about the purpose. They thought that the average voter could not be trusted to choose a president, and that a direct election would result in "tumult and disorder". Instead, the decision would be made by "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station", who would not be so easily swayed by the "heats and ferment…

> No, that was not the point, why do people keep saying this? The framers were very open about the purpose. They thought that the average voter could not be trusted to choose a president, and that a direct election would result in "tumult and disorder". Instead, the decision would be made by "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station", who would not be so easily swayed by the "heats and ferments" of the people.

So why, in your view, do the states get to appoint the electors?

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

#374

Post by drak0n1c »

cosmobot wrote: post #364
Izkata wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unsurprisingly, given that almost every state government to pass the National Popular Vote compact was completely controlled by Democrats, It kinda feels like this part keeps getting glossed over when people talk about this. I don't think those signing on have really thought it through, and are just reacting to the 2016 election results. Of course the party that lost wants to change the system in a way that, that t…

It's worth noting that the same thing happened to the Democrats in 2000, and hadn't happened in the US at that point for over 100 years. Looked at from the perspective of the Democratic party: they have won the popular vote 4 out of the last 5 elections, but only won the presidency twice. It's not surprising the party's frustration with the Electoral College would continue to grow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite…

Interestingly in 2008 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote to be the Democratic Nominee but did not become the Nominee. The Democrats criticize the EC, but also don't mind using a form of it internally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presiden...

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

#375

Post by dragonwriter »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #360
baddox wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be unfortunate if states felt they wanted to secede because their citizens were given the same political influence over presidential election as citizens of other states.

It would be California and New York deciding the fate of all other states. You would definitely see a mass succession.

> It would be California and New York deciding the fate of all other states.

No, it wouldn't.

California and New York, even voting as a 100% block, don't represent a national majority. Heck, they aren't even the two largest states (#2 is Texas.)

It wouldn't be states representing a relatively small fraction of the population dictating control of the Senate while be overly powerful in choosing the President—but they'd still control the Senate, and hereby have a veto on federal law. So why would they secede?

> You would definitely see a mass succession.

(1) you mean secession, and

(2) if the low-population, mostly low-GDP states secede and thereby sacrifice their disproportionate control over be rest of the country, that they otherwise retain as long as the Senate exists with or without also having extra Presidential vote weighting (the small, high-GDP states have largely signed on to the national popular vote, so aren't likely to secede over it), whose loss is that?

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

#376

Post by mlyle »

burkaman wrote: post #309
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the problem here is that you're portraying it as if cities or states are the agents making decisions, rather than individuals. That was exactly the point of the Electoral College - that states would elect the president. You may think that's a bad idea. That's fine. You may want to change it. But it's a really fundamental change to the architecture. If it's to be changed, it should be changed by a constituti…

No, that was not the point, why do people keep saying this? The framers were very open about the purpose. They thought that the average voter could not be trusted to choose a president, and that a direct election would result in "tumult and disorder". Instead, the decision would be made by "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station", who would not be so easily swayed by the "heats and ferment…

> No, that was not the point, why do people keep saying this? The framers were very open about the purpose. They thought that the average voter could not be trusted to choose a president, and that a direct election would result in "tumult and disorder". Instead, the decision would be made by "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station", who would not be so easily swayed by the "heats and ferments" of the people.

That was part of the purpose; a part that we have since mostly neutered. But the number of electors was definitely chosen to compromise between small and large (population) states.

Senate representation is apportioned constantly per state. House representation is apportioned approximately proportional to population. The electoral college is a compromise (sum) of these too.

States have gotten to choose how to select their electors, and most have chosen winner-take-all (in part because this is a strategy that is strategically powerful). So it remains a forum of state-chosen electors, with a weight that is a compromise between per-state and per-population representation, like it has always been.

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

#377

Post by 1337biz »

TylerE wrote: post #328
ShamelessC wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in favor of the electoral college, but wouldn't its elimination merely shift this problem to politicians only visiting the most poulated states (e.g. California) anyway?

I think the whole “visiting” thing is overblown. We have TV and the Internet. This isn’t the 19th century when the only way the average American might EVER see or hear a President would be a short speech off the back of a train car.

You can't discount Trump's stadium tours as an important part in his campaign strategy. It's essential for emotionalizing the base. Almost the same way a Spotify stream compares to a live arena concert. I would even go so far that offline events have in these digital times a much higher voter activation potential.

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

#378

Post by komali2 »

TylerE wrote: post #171
komali2 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reward how? The electoral college system determines the election of president. How does one state being more populated matter? Votes are distributed equally across all citizens.

No they aren't, that's the whole problem! http://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-th... Look at the huge disparity towards small rural states. This is bad, but it's even worse because due to the effect of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 ( https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/Th... ) the number of Represenatives has been fixed at 435 for almost 100 years, and since the sm…

Sorry, I meant in a universal vote program, i.e if there's no electoral college.

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

#379

Post by vturner »

WarDores wrote: post #333

It's not about division of power between rural/urban or big states/small states. The Electoral College is about buffering purely democratic power. The President doesn't represent "the people." He/she represents the interests of the states. The Legislative Branch represents the will of the people (most directly through the House of Representatives). One of the biggest problems is vesting too much power and importance…

I wish someone with $$ would start plastering this message everywhere the absurd "get rid of the elctoral college" debate comes up. We are not a democracy, seriously no one wants a democracy of 300 million plus. We are a federation of states that is supposed to have most of the control in their region and sacrifice a little bit of control to the federal government for purposes of defense and commerce. Your "democracy" should be your state legislature, but sadly authoritarians of the past have taken that away.

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

#380

Post by hyperpape »

anon1m0us wrote: post #358
hyperpape wrote: post #302

There are discussions about the electoral college favoring small states. Some people think that's bad, some people think it's good. However, there's a more important issue: that's not really what the electoral college does. It gives a small edge to small states[0]. The much bigger effect is that in every given election, it favors a handful of battleground states over all the rest. If you live in Wyoming, the electora…

You should be careful about the word "small" here. What you mean is least populous, but geographically, they are large. Thus, the question is: Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? If you eliminate the electoral college you give political control of resources to those who have absolutely NO physical control of those resources and yet still s…

Two things:

1. I’m gonna take a hard line that people deserve a vote, dirt doesn’t.

2. Louisiana is the 25th most populous state and I think 25th densest. So, I’m not sure the electoral college is protecting those less dense states’ environments. As the sibling points out, sometimes coastal liberals want environmental protection, while natives want to exploit the environment for profit.

Post reply on HN