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

571–580 of 932 posts

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

#571

Post by FireBeyond »

smsm42 wrote: post #489
FireBeyond wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 v…

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

LAC and NYC both voted very blue, yet here we are. How do you credibly claim that "LAC is by and large in charge of the direction of the federal government"?

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

#572

Post by pasquinelli »

rayiner wrote: post #516
pasquinelli wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesn’t follow. Even in recent history, most Presidents command large electoral vote majorities. In my life time, 7 of 10 elections ended in a more than 60-40 margin in the electoral college, including both Obama wins.

What difference does that make? It's either moving the goal posts so your team can win if they're out of power or it's entrenching your team's position if they have power. Either way is an outrage to someone, and so any reform comes at the wrong time.

I really don't see the point you're making.

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

#573

Post by bendbro »

wutbrodo wrote: post #536
bendbro wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if Louisiana's federal desires are consistently decided by more populous states, what is left that motivates Louisiana to remain a member of the United States?

For a start, they get massive transfers of money from more productive states: three dollars for every one that they pay in taxes.

Agree this is a benefit, but in Louisiana's case this benefit is only 0.5% of their GDP (10 billion aid / 205 billion GDP). In a red state, where business interests more heavily control political power, I don't think federal tax benefits will influence a Brexit-tier decision too much.

To put this in blunt terms: there are a ton of impoverished African Americans in these states that receive a large chunk of that federal aid. The segments of Louisiana that don't receive that aid are tax-productive and will not vote against a Brexit-like decision, even if it means that federal aid stops flowing

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

#574

Post by Bellyache5 »

chillwaves wrote: post #246
umvi wrote: post #67

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? 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…

High population density = more people, more voters. Yes, I think thier opinion should count more than the less people, less voters of the rest of the state. Land doesn't (shouldn't) vote. > too bad, the city folk are in charge now. You mean democracy? You mean 1 person 1 vote? You mean the majority? This is what you have a problem with? Go ahead and state that view, but let's be honest about what you are saying. You…

The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic.

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

#575

Post by danieltillett »

big_chungus wrote: post #542
greggeter wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are not going to be able to buy off 30,000 reps if you are a lobyist. More reps and less staff are the way to win back democracy.

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

#576

Post by adolph »

ska wrote: post #342
adolph wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they are performing the task as outlined by the constitution, which is the “correct” method, and which the people are free to amend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...

Ok, but that's heading into a circle though. The complaint I thought is that the "correct" method does not result in proportion by population, and some people think that would be better.

Many people often think that something different than an existing system would be better or more advantageous for themselves and advocate for it. Claiming rightness or correctness is an appeal to a moral sense of fair play for which their counter-parties are not likely imagine reciprocated once the change comes to fruition.

I’m surprised that given technology advances people don’t just cut out the expensive elected officials and put everything up to several national votes per day. If you think that the founders got the proportional balance wrong, what about the temporal balance? Why invest decision making power in one person over such long time frames?

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

#577

Post by tedmcory77 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #226
tedmcory77 wrote: post #175

Democratic candidates have won the popular vote 4/5 times in the most re ent elections, but only won the Presidency 2/5. That’s an issue.

Teams with the most yards lose some football games, too. Is that an issue? Run to win the election under the rules that are in force.

I’m oddly of the opinion that anything that makes someones vote worth more than another's isnt a good system.

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

#578

Post by quotemstr »

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.

Who defines need?

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

#579

Post by dragonwriter »

pishpash wrote: post #502
dragonwriter wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> California was basically solid red from the 1950s through the 1980s Suddenly swung in 1992, and has been seen as solid blue since—not really an example of swing states switching as a state rapidly moving from Republican lock to Democratic lock.

Phase transition is a natural outcome of all-or-nothing elector pledging.

> Phase transition is a natural outcome of all-or-nothing elector pledging.

Don't see why it would be. Obviously a flip will flip all of a states electors if it did all or nothing assignment, as most do, but sudden flip from consistent red to consistent blue in Presidential elections isn't a product of that. Might be a product of winner take all elections at other levels (e.g., state house, with the majority flipping reshaping donor alignments in the state and leading major voices to switch sides) but that's not what happened in CA either; the legislature didn't flip from solid Red to solid Blue at a time that would be consistent with it being a driving factor for the Presidential shift.

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

#580

Post by delecti »

brink wrote: post #555
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)?

> What's wrong with politicians paying more attention to the needs of more people? It may encourage the discrimination against minorities.

Don't urban (and thus more dense dense) centers of population trend less white? Wouldn't it discourage discrimination against mionorities?
Post reply on HN