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

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

#551

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

innocentoldguy wrote: post #16

This is stupid. The entire point of the electoral college is to ensure small states have a say and the country isn’t ruled by the majority mob. Small states would have to be pretty ignorant to make themselves irrelevant like that.

It looks like there are at least three dumb fucks on Hacker News. According to Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 68, avoiding mob rule was the first reason for the electoral college. The second was to ensure qualified people chose the president of the U.S. The third was to prevent civil disorder (again, mob rule) by spreading the elector's votes around the nation. The fourth was to prevent corruption. Without the electoral college, small states don't have the numbers to counter states like California, New York, and other heavily populated areas. Mob rule is a problem to some degree with the electoral college; nevertheless, its purpose was to prevent that.

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

#552

Post by turk73 » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:42 AM UTC

The electoral college system isn't working that badly and the only people who want to change it are Democrats because they think they can sway the election if they do. If it was going the other way the would be all "we must retain the sanctity of the electoral college at all costs!"

I don't want big cities deciding anything more than they already do. Big cities are all run by Democrats 100% and have been for decades and they are all failing.

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

#553

Post by dclowd9901 » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:43 AM UTC

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…

Very few people care if a candidate visits their state. I know I don't and I would be hard-pressed to list a single person that does. All I care about is if they're willing to answer questions directly and if their policies match my general ideas.

In other words: if a candidate really wants to spend their whole campaign in Ohio, I could give a shit. Go for it.

Abolish the electoral college. Now.

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

#554

Post by dclowd9901 » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:46 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?

Your question presumes quite a lot. I'll start with "what makes you think people who don't live in Wyoming are incapable of understanding Wyoming?"

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

#555

Post by brink » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:46 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)?

> What's wrong with politicians paying more attention to the needs of more people?

It may encourage the discrimination against minorities.

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

#556

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:49 AM UTC

HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #549

delecti wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> everyone should get attention

I’m not entirely convinced presidential candidates share this belief.

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

#557

Post by freewilly1040 » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:51 AM UTC

mattnewton wrote: post #347

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.

Visiting here is a proxy for overall campaign message initiatives, which includes physical visits, but also ad buy and even shaping the candidates message and platform to better appeal to the swing stage demographic. Arguably the last one is the biggest potential problem since it means some minority has an outside influence on candidates.

As an example of this imbalance shaping platforms see American policy on Cuba, where conservative policy is enduringly punitive appeal to Florida voters

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

#558

Post by fastball » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:52 AM UTC

https://i.imgur.com/wpOIGxq.png

That's a nice number of comments.

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

#559

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:52 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #468

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But their lives are so different. For instance: gun control. Rules for millions of people crowded into a pressure-cooker city, vs rules for folks living a mile apart with varmints, police protection an hour away, hunting, are reasonably very different. Same for zoning, licensing, inspections, on and on. Rural residents often get saddled with metro rules that make no sense.

Except not every city is midtown Manhattan, and not every rural area is the Ozarks. You can get "varmints" and long police response times in New York and LA. Most people in the "country" don't hunt, fish, or gather firewood, and most people in the "cities" aren't living hyperdense urbane chic lifestyles. In reality, most of the country lives in between these extremes.

Most people (by pure numbers) by definition live in very large cities. In fact, in the USA, most Americans live in very large coastal cities. So that argument doesn't hold water.

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

#560

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 2:53 AM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #300

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But their lives are so different. For instance: gun control. Rules for millions of people crowded into a pressure-cooker city, vs rules for folks living a mile apart with varmints, police protection an hour away, hunting, are reasonably very different. Same for zoning, licensing, inspections, on and on. Rural residents often get saddled with metro rules that make no sense.

Great example. Cities are prevented from having sensible gun control because rural voters who don't care about their needs* prevent it. * But love cashing their welfare checks sent from urban citizens.

Those 'welfare cheats' are feeding you.