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

621–630 of 932 posts

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

#621

Post by hannasanarion »

Scramblejams wrote: post #207
human20190310 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a related anachronism... > In [Republican CO State Senator Sonnenberg's] view, the Electoral College was created so that “people in rural areas did not get overrun by the masses.” This can't be true since in 1790 (roughly the same time period the EC was created), "the masses" were rural; at that point only about 5% of the population was urban[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...

In the US they were rural. The founders and early lawmakers took much inspiration from the histories and travails of other governments around the world.

Which were also predominantly rural. There was no country on earth with a majority urban population until well into the 20th century.

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

#622

Post by nostrademons »

hannasanarion wrote: post #594
brigandish wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Minority" does not always mean skin colour. John Stuart Mill wrote about the tyranny of the majority[0] in 1850's England∗, which I'll hazard a guess was 99% white, even with steamboats and the British Empire reaching right around the world. ∗and he appears to refer to it as a well established idiom so I suspect it goes further back [0] On Liberty https://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html

Why do you think that tyranny of the majority is a bad thing?

Most people are minorities in at least one aspect that they hold dear to their identity. Under tyranny of the majority, they risk finding that aspect made illegal.

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

#623

Post by rapind »

rayiner wrote: post #615
lazyasciiart wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people think the changes Trump is making are radically different, and the system has turned out to be a gentleman's agreement that doesn't prevent anything.

Trump has been able to get almost nothing done. He got a tax cut, which was billed as radical but mostly just brings our corporate taxes in line with Western Europe. And he put tariffs on China—one of the few things the President can do without the support of Congress.

He got a judge.

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

#624

Post by hannasanarion »

pseingatl wrote: post #570

It's in the Constitution. If you don't like the Constitution: --amend it. --call for a Constitutional Convention. These are the agreed methods to change the document. "End runs," state compacts and attempts to game the system are unconstitutional and doomed.

Winner take all is not in the constitution. When states started arranging their elections this way in the early 1800s, the chief creators of the Electoral College Madison and Hamilton, called it an abomination and sued, and when that failed, tried to amend the constitution to get rid of winner-take-all.

The constitution says that states can apportion their votes however they want. If they want to give them to the national popular winner, that's their prerogative.

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

#625

Post by hannasanarion »

sanxiyn wrote: post #367
cgb223 wrote: post #261

Why cant states just give out percents of electoral votes based on who voted? Example: Lets say CA has 10 Electoral Votes (for easy math) 60% vote Dem, 40% vote Republican. California then Gives 6 Electoral Votes to the Democrat and 4 to the Republican instead of all 10 to the Democrat. Feels like that would more fairly represent the voters of each state no?

Yes, I also think this is the simplest way to make it more fair. States can do this unilaterally without pact. That's why I feel the pact is not about fairness.

The pact is necessary because whoever changes the system first loses out on influence. You never hear of presidential candidates appealing to Maine or Nebraska. It only works if everyone does it together.

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

#626

Post by hannasanarion »

nostrademons wrote: post #622
hannasanarion wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that tyranny of the majority is a bad thing?

Most people are minorities in at least one aspect that they hold dear to their identity. Under tyranny of the majority, they risk finding that aspect made illegal.

Why do you think that tyranny of the minority is better?

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

#627

Post by sachdevap »

newfriend wrote: post #583
sachdevap wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quantify that "very close", in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, which is 1.5% of the voting population. I would not call that very close. It isn't a difference of some 1000 votes. It's an election of a minority leader.

It was an election of a majority leader. The majority of electoral votes were for Donald Trump, by a large margin. The house is elected by population, the senate by state. The electoral college is designed to be a blend of the house and senate systems.

Well, if we're talking of why electoral college was designed to be this way, then we should read the intention of the founders.

> As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” [0]

Firstly, that has nothing to do with a "blend", and secondly that purpose was far from served. I rest my case.

[0] https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-elector...

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

#628

Post by brigandish »

hannasanarion wrote: post #594
brigandish wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Minority" does not always mean skin colour. John Stuart Mill wrote about the tyranny of the majority[0] in 1850's England∗, which I'll hazard a guess was 99% white, even with steamboats and the British Empire reaching right around the world. ∗and he appears to refer to it as a well established idiom so I suspect it goes further back [0] On Liberty https://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html

Why do you think that tyranny of the majority is a bad thing?

Because, without embarrassment at the facetiousness of the straightforward answer, it's a tyranny i.e. it (possibly) restricts or removes the liberty of individuals, sometimes with a big dollop of direct harm like violence.

Do you disagree?

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

#629

Post by hinkley »

hannasanarion wrote: post #594
brigandish wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Minority" does not always mean skin colour. John Stuart Mill wrote about the tyranny of the majority[0] in 1850's England∗, which I'll hazard a guess was 99% white, even with steamboats and the British Empire reaching right around the world. ∗and he appears to refer to it as a well established idiom so I suspect it goes further back [0] On Liberty https://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html

Why do you think that tyranny of the majority is a bad thing?

This guy is a witch. We should burn him. All those in favor?

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

#630

Post by hannasanarion »

brigandish wrote: post #628
hannasanarion wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that tyranny of the majority is a bad thing?

Because, without embarrassment at the facetiousness of the straightforward answer, it's a tyranny i.e. it (possibly) restricts or removes the liberty of individuals, sometimes with a big dollop of direct harm like violence. Do you disagree?

And why do you think that tyranny of the minority is better?
Post reply on HN