15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 1:49 AM UTC

pasquinelli wrote: post #500

gthaman wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let the states that will never get their way in a "fixed" elector college, secede. To mess with the electoral college in this point in time - when its basically 49% vs 51% - and at such a level of divide in the country is not exactly a testament to how empathetic the two sides are. It would be a disaster. Everyone thinks Trump himself is the problem but this awful idea to change the goalposts literally to win electio…

By your logic there can never be a suitable time for democratic reform. The current political situation can only get worse until the united states becomes more democratic or more authoritarian.

Is there evidence that this proposition isn't true?

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

#522

Post by ianai » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 1:49 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #519

zw123456 wrote: post #518

I have often thought that part of the rationale for the electoral college was that in the 18th century they did not have the internet, TV, Radio, even newspapers were pretty scarce. So it just wasn't all that practical for a candidate to ride a horse around all 13 colonies to meet each voter. The logical solution would have been to have a parliamentary system whereby the congress would select the president for you. T…

On the other hand, the electoral college, like congress, gives actual weight to the idea that a state is more than just the sum of its population, by automatically getting two votes for being a state. Whether or not that is necessary is a different conversation from the information dissemination purpose of the EC.

That isn’t a reason for a single state to be able to hold the entire progress of the majority back.

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

#523

Post by IG_Semmelweiss » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 1:56 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #478

malandrew wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the federal government is needed in order to apply some culpability to times when the local government behaves negligently. And who will apply culpability when the federal government behaves negligently? Creating a higher institution to address the issue just shifts the problem of apply culpability to an institution that you have even less chance of influencing.

The answer is that we have a system of checks and balances in the federal government which are meant to ensure that one branch doesn't overshadow another. The states and the electoral college were supposed to add another layer of said balance, but what they've done is shifted power further towards the federal government advancing rural interests. Many of those rural areas could not survive without the federal governm…

You just made his point.

The balance of power is working precisely because the legislative is very much majority rule.

As such, if the executive did away without the electoral college, it would also overrepresent populous, majority populations.

By doing away with the electoral college , you literally destroy whatever is left of the Republic

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

#524

Post by chillwaves » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 1:59 AM UTC

briznian wrote: post #413

chillwaves wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mitch McConnell represents 6.8M people in TN and he is the most powerful man in the Senate, and one of the most powerful people in the country. How difficult is it to corrupt a man like Mitch McConnell? How robust is our system of representation when one senator holds so much power?

McConnell is from Kentucky

Thanks. Doesn't change the substance of my comment except that Kentucky has even less people in it than TN.

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

#525

Post by danek » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 1:59 AM UTC

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…

I’m not following your example. You clarified in another comment that Louisiana is environmentally decimated due to the actions or votes of the blue states. However Louisiana typically goes hard red, and the GOP is very much opposed to environmental protections.

Also I’m not sure what you mean by them pushing all the bad stuff to Louisiana and what that has to do with presidential elections (aside from that the president sets EPA policy, but again, Louisiana voted for trump so I don’t get it)

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

#526

Post by dane-pgp » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:00 AM UTC

jeanperrot wrote: post #112

peapicker wrote: post #71

Firstly, I'm an independent - I actually have a great deal of issues with both major parties. My concern with abandoning the college starts with this observation: Swing states are the states most likely to have divided government. And if divided government is good for anything, it is accountability. So with the Electoral College system, when we do wind up with a razor-thin margin in an election, it is likely to happe…

I like your point about incentivizing high turnout (and the resulting inter-state race for turnout). I wouldn't necessarily equate it with lax election laws though. Oregon (where I live) is blessed with vote-by-mail -- it affords high turnout with high vote verifiability. Being able to consider & research arguments on both sides of the issues and candidates in detail before voting is fantastic.

> vote-by-mail -- it affords high turnout with high vote verifiability

Even if you could verify that a given vote is counted, it's much harder to verify that the voter's choice was not made under duress, or influenced by a bribe.

There are methods for mitigating these problems (like allowing an in-person vote to override your postal vote), but these have their own issues, and I worry that becoming accustomed to vote-by-mail will increase the calls for online-voting.

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

#527

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:00 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #375

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The first state to secede will be California, and rightfully so, when the Trump wave of 2020 gives the Repubs control of 37 state legislatures, and the first ridiculous Constitutional amendment focuses on who and who is not allowed to use particular public restrooms. They might be joined by other west-coast states...

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

#528

Post by fastball » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:07 AM UTC

ianai wrote: post #522

fastball wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, the electoral college, like congress, gives actual weight to the idea that a state is more than just the sum of its population, by automatically getting two votes for being a state. Whether or not that is necessary is a different conversation from the information dissemination purpose of the EC.

That isn’t a reason for a single state to be able to hold the entire progress of the majority back.

How can a single state hold back progress in this case?

Individual states can apportion their EC votes however they want. 48/50 states are all-or-nothing states (arguably the actual problem), which is decided at the state level.

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

#529

Post by kortilla » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:09 AM UTC

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…

California and Alabama are basically the same.

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

#530

Post by IG_Semmelweiss » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

There are 2 major data points that are forgotten in this discussion

#1 The founding fathers responsible for the american revolution risked everything by creating the constitution and the electoral college. They literally went against the most powerful empire in the world. They determined that the electoral college was the best system to defend the freedom of the naescent Republic.

Then on the other side, you have a bunch of armchair bureaucrats and talking heads trying to change the system they inherited thanks to the blood of others. They want the benefits from the change ("more votes") but should the system implode, they will surely socialize losses among USA (they wont even join the army , let alone fight for what they believe in ).

Then you have switzerland. The longest continuous government in the world operates as an extreme version of Republic, giving ample powers to small groups, where they can undo anything enacted by the majority. Nothing gets done as people bicker about small things. Majority does not get its sat. Yet the country is the most stable in the world.

Maybe its time to consider what is the price for changing something that was forged with the blood of tears of more brave men, and has proven to stand the test of time.