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

481–490 of 932 posts

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

#481

Post by travisjungroth »

sokoloff wrote: post #469

The electoral college also serves as a “firewall” of sorts to contain any local election fraud to that state (such that the will of the voters in that state is compromised, but the compromise doesn’t extend beyond that). For all I care, CA could pick their votes out of a lotto machine and it wouldn’t affect the power of my vote (as a non-CA resident). The fact that my vote is meaningless (deep blue state) is a collat…

And if Ohio or Florida has election fraud? The electoral college doesn’t firewall off election fraud. It creates vulnerabilities by concentrating voting power.

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

#482

Post by m0zg »

dragonwriter wrote: post #450
m0zg wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want the US to stay whole, that's a big problem. Technically states can secede, or form a separate union if they so desire. That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds.

> Technically states can secede, mlor form a separate union if they so desire. Technically , they can't. There is no provision for secession in the US Constitution. Practically , well, the one notable attempt didn't work out, so not that, either. > That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds…

>> There is no provision for secession in the US Constitution.

There's no provision forbidding secession either, so they technically very much can. All that's not forbidden is allowed.

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

#483

Post by saalweachter »

umvi wrote: post #67
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...

> I'm all for rural representation, but people in rural areas essentially have their vote count more than people in cities, right? Yeah but maybe that's a good thing. Otherwise you have a situation like New York where NYC gets to dictate everything since it's super high population density even though the majority of geographical NY state is farmers. So the farmers get screwed over by the interests of the city folk wh…

> For example, city folks are more likely to vote for increases in property taxes - not that they care too much since they only have a tiny apartment - but it hits the people outside of the city with lots of land (for farming) really hard.

Firstly, property taxes are levied at the town(ship) levels in New York State. Secondly, property taxes are levied on the assessed property value of the property in question, which will be $1-5000/acre for agricultural land, so an $800,000 Manhattan studio will have the same assessed value of up to 800 acres of farmland. Thirdly, property taxes on farm land are fully deductible business expenses, while property taxes on your primary residence is not.

Finally, it doesn't come through in text, but allow me to spend the next seven minutes laughing on the floor at the notion that city dwellers are blase about their property taxes going up.

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

#484

Post by sokoloff »

thomascgalvin wrote: post #437
corodra wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your arguement about why do LA residents count less. I say it's not neccesarily less. Just differently. Do you want someone who has never farmed in their lives. Probably never even picked up a shovel, have a say in the rules and regs about agriculture throughout the midwest? Same goes vice versa. Country folk who hate living in concrete jungles shouldn't make rules for city dwellers. Thus an equal vote, isn't equa…

> I say it's not neccesarily less. Just differently. So ... separate but equal?

In what way are they segregated? This seems like a flip and irrelevant inflammatory comment to me.

Apologies if there’s a direct linkage that I’m simply missing

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

#485

Post by madengr »

jdavis703 wrote: post #395
anon1m0us wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Weighting "resources" is not a good thing. In the past it's been used to justify some of the most horrific policies in the U.S. The U.S. constitution counted slaves at 60% of a person. Some of the arguments for the three fifths compromise were that slaveholders didn't want people who weren't "knowledgable" about slaveholding to be meddling in slaveholder's business. This is essentially one of the causes that sparked…

Gridlock is good. The last thing I want is control by one party.

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

#486

Post by IncRnd »

IgorPartola wrote: post #451
rayiner wrote: post #418

Debates over the electoral college tend to conflate two different things. The original purpose of the electoral college was a compromise between those who wanted the president directly elected, and those who wanted Congress to elect the president. While very small states have a modest edge as a result of using the number of members of Congress to decide the number of electors, the real purpose of the system is to add…

First, the number of House reps is no longer proportionate to the population. Second, the layer of indirection as it exists today does nothing. Electors aren’t free to choose a president. They in most cases must elect the person they pledged to elect and if they don’t they instantly get replaced by a new elector who will. What purpose does that serve? Seems to me like we should either buck up and actually allow these…

> Second, the layer of indirection as it exists today does nothing. Electors aren’t free to choose a president. They in most cases must elect the person they pledged to elect and if they don’t they instantly get replaced by a new elector who will. What purpose does that serve? Seems to me like we should either buck up and actually allow these people to elect a president, or abolish the whole institution as it currently is a farce.

That is not correct. There has just been a ruling that the states cannot impose these sorts of restrictions on the process already delineated in the US Constitution.

Please see https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/federal-appea....

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

#487

Post by jack_h »

marcell wrote: post #456
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 don't know about that, specifically this part: > He/she represents the interests of the states This assumes that states in America have some sort of distinct cultural/political interests, divided along state lines. This isn't really the case. For example there are no significant cultural differences between North Dakota and South Dakota. The dividing line there is pretty arbitrary. Similarly, some places that have…

I can't speak specifically to North and South Dakota, but having lived in both Arizona and Colorado I can tell you they absolutely are different places culturally and politically.

Speaking to your second point, even in the EU this can be the case. Look at Wallonia and Flanders in Belgium. Spain is also a good example, Catalonia especially.

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

#488

Post by IIAOPSW »

rayiner wrote: post #418

Debates over the electoral college tend to conflate two different things. The original purpose of the electoral college was a compromise between those who wanted the president directly elected, and those who wanted Congress to elect the president. While very small states have a modest edge as a result of using the number of members of Congress to decide the number of electors, the real purpose of the system is to add…

>Article II provides that “each state shall appoint” electors “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” So Minnesota could decide to have the state legislature appoint its electors, without a popular vote.

Technically correct but as per the 13th (?) amendment, when a state denies any male citizen aged 18 or over and not a felon the right to vote, said states representation in the electoral college and congress is recalculated as though they didn't have said residents. Therefore if Minnesota went through with this they would have no more than the baseline 3 electoral votes.

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

#489

Post by smsm42 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #473
smsm42 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we are no longer an actual representative democracy. Claiming that because California has 57 votes and Wyoming a whopping 3 votes, instead of California having 70 and Wyoming one (if at all), we "no longer have representative democracy" is nonsense. California still have wastly more votes. Yes, Wyoming also gets some, otherwise it why bother voting at all if everything is essentially decided by the most populous st…

> everything is essentially decided by the most populous states anyway? The state isn't voting homogenously. Just like Eastern Washington could vote differently to the Puget Sound with more direct representation. The key word in your argument is 'populous'. Thinking in terms other than people, be it states/counties/acreage is another version of putting "landowners" in charge. > Why people leaving in LAC should be in…

> Thinking in terms other than people, be it states/counties/acreage is another version of putting "landowners" in charge.

Again, having 3 votes against 57 does not put whoever has 3 votes "in charge" in any sensible meaning of the word.

> Except they don't.

Because they think LAC has already made up their minds, no matter what. And judging from voting patterns, they are correct. So whose fault is that? If more LAC voters would vote diversely, politicians would pay more attention to LAC, they are not stupid. But when it's 70+% to one side, why bother? Same campaigning dollar would bring much more impact elsewhere, and campaign resources are finite.

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

#490

Post by danaris »

reallydude wrote: post #135
danaris wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plurality of the geography of NY State may be agricultural land, but that is not the same thing as saying that the majority of its people are farmers. If you cut NYC off from the rest of the state, yes, you'd have a majority-rural population, and probably a red state—but not majority farmer and farm workers. I live and work in rural NY State. For every farmer out here, there are dozens of teachers, janitors, comp…

"doesn't mean that we should give the rest of the state disproportionate power." Is it in the best interests of all the people to have proportionate power? I believe so. The EC is an abstraction, which philosophically and practically takes choice away from individuals. Population centers having more power than rural areas (even when they are the geographical majority, otherwise) is a proxy for land-owners having more…

I think it's also important to remember that (to the best of my knowledge) the majority of farmland is not individually owned: it's run by large agricultural companies.

So the "land-owners," or at least, the owners of the companies that own the land, also live in the cities, and are themselves among the vastly wealthy.

Post reply on HN