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

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

#541

Post by scottmcf » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:32 AM UTC

J5892 wrote: post #394

hyperpape wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the case of Louisiana, we (natives) have been screaming for environmental protections for decades, because erosion has been eating away at our state. Meanwhile, our state government seems more concerned with gutting education wherever possible and doing everything it can to destroy New Orleans' economy.

The recent electoral record in Louisiana doesn't exactly make it seem that high a priority for them.

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

#542

Post by big_chungus » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:34 AM UTC

greggeter wrote: post #491

harryh wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the number of House reps is no longer proportionate to the population. Yes they are. Each house district has about 750,000 people. You get a bit of deviation because states don't necessarily have a precise multiple of 750k people. Also we only redraw districts every 10 years, so things have drifted a bit since 2010. But it's pretty close.

We should expand the number of reps to 1 per 100k. Would help much of the problems.

You think adding more people to the room in an already-dissonant chamber will make thing more coherent? We moved to a modified republic precisely because a huge-scale town meeting isn't practical.

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

#543

Post by sagichmal » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:34 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…

> Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it?

Land doesn't vote.

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

#544

Post by twoodfin » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:35 AM UTC

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…

It’s a shame most of these comments are debating the merits of the Electoral College, skipping right past the much more interesting & relevant argument of whether the NPV compact is constitutional.

I agree with you that it’s not. States can indeed choose electors with any constitutional method they wish, but if they hold a statewide election, it has to be a fair election or it will run afoul of the 14th Amendment.

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

#545

Post by pknopf » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:36 AM UTC

ShamelessC wrote: post #320

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…

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?

Not if you make the votes proportional.

There are a huge number of Republicans in California that would have just as much of a say than Florida/Ohio/etc.

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

#546

Post by big_chungus » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:40 AM UTC

gthaman wrote: post #461

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…

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…

> Let the states that will never get their way in a "fixed" elector college, secede.

Why has every one abandoned the idea of federalism? The whole point was that you could have your way and I could have mine; we only had to agree on the bare minimum tasks which absolutely had to be handled at the federal level.

If California wants socialized medicine and Texas does not, fine. Why can't they do it on the state level? I see no reason. This has the double benefit of allowing experimenting with different solutions before committing on a national scale.

This shouldn't be a "red state/blue state" issue. The only reason why it would be is if you are hellbent on ramming your positions down the throats of those with whom you disagree. What so many forget is that when the other side gets power, it will do the same to you. The Democrats, for instance, spent years centralizing federal authority in President Obama so he could abuse it and are now surprised when President Trump abuses it too. Maybe if we just invested less power in the executive, both sides would be happier.

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

#547

Post by pknopf » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:40 AM UTC

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…

The founding fathers did not predict that a few states would become hyper-partisan and stop giving EC votes proportionally. The few states, early on, did this because they were decidedly red/blue and wanted a bigger say in who is president. A bunch of other states wound up following suit to level the playing field.

Now, we have winner-takes-all for almost every state. Now, politicians don't spend time pandering for votes they already have locked.

It created the concept of "battle ground states".

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

#548

Post by danek » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:40 AM UTC

dwighttk wrote: post #476

danek wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would give even more power to special interests, as they only need to influence a governor (or a small number of state reps) to get their senate choice, rather than all the voters in the state. I can’t see why that’s better, since at least now senators have to pretend to represent constituents.

oh good... pretending to represent constituents... holding the bulwark against special interests.

Maybe you could explain how your position improves upon this...

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

#549

Post by HeWhoLurksLate » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

delecti wrote: post #533

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've seen this pointed out, and absolutely do not see it as a problem. What's wrong with politicians paying more attention to the needs of more people? They're going to campaign somewhere , why should they pay more attention to Cleveland, Ohio (metro area population ~2m) than Los Angeles ( city population 3m, metro population over 13m)?

The issue is more that everyone should get attention, and removing the electoral college & going straight to popular vote will honestly erode that- as others have noted, politicians will spend more time in the highest population areas and possibly not the highest need areas.

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

#550

Post by whenanother » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:42 AM UTC

the electoral college system has become a scam to give the presidential election to the wealthy. they can, during the election year establish residency in the swing states and in affect have more of a say as to who becomes president. people here claiming that it gives the rural population more of a say, that's a lot of bs. with national popular vote the urban and rural states will have just as much of a say as each vote will count for one vote. none of this crap of increasing the representative count and taking advantage of the numbers being rounded in favor of one party vs the other. now if a party wants to rig the election, they will have a much harder time.