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

701–710 of 932 posts

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

#701

Post by MertsA »

Kerrick wrote: post #653
sachdevap wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In those days I don’t think the electoral college members were bound by law to vote for the president that state-run popular votes determine are the state’s choice. Of course the purpose isn’t being served if the men and women of the college aren’t allowed to act on their own.

The original intent wasn't even that the president was democratically elected. In most states today the electoral college members aren't bound by law to vote for the winner of the state's general election. The original intent was that each state government sent their chosen electoral college members and then it was up to them to figure out who to vote for from that point onwards.

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

#702

Post by newfriend »

sachdevap wrote: post #627
newfriend wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But we aren't talking about why it was designed this way, we are talking about why there are 538 electors, and why the popular vote total doesn't matter at all. The total amount of electors is a sum of the total house reps + total senate -- appears to be a blend of both systems to me.

You said "It's an election of a minority leader.", but that isn't the case by any measure that actually matters, however upsetting it may be for you.

Whatever case you are resting has nothing to do with how many total electors there are, and neither does Hamilton's opinion.

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

#703

Post by sytelus »

kd5bjo wrote: post #693
dahart wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument seems confused to me, but maybe I don’t quite understand, can you elaborate? We do have state level democracy. The electoral college’s purpose is solely for presidential elections, not for local elections. Why shouldn’t we have a democracy for presidential elections? Your reasons given (local control) don’t apply to federal elections. Even with the electoral college, we’re pretty close to democratic rep…

The structure of the Federal government is fundamentally geared towards mediating the relationships between the various states, as that was its original purpose. Actual governance of the populace was the purview of state government. Over time, however, decisions about domestic law have increasingly been made at the Federal level. At this point, the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution is used to justify alm…

Thanks for insightful comments. Its sometime easy to forget that USA means union of states. Each state has a freedom to create its own laws within the limits of constitution to satisfy needs of its population. The way I see it, different states present different philosophy and lifestyle. People are free to get attached to the one they feel most aligned. President is supposed to be representing this union of states, not just the major population centers.

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

#704

Post by vkou »

exclusiv wrote: post #605
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 great about the electoral college is you need to have cross-regional appeal to win. So its less about which states are going to be battleground but that you generally can't just appeal to 1 or 2 regions and win. In a goal of preserving the union, it's better to have a system that pushes cross-regional appeal than a system based strictly on number of votes IMO.

Why do we only give disproportionate representation to people on the basis of their zip code?

Why not give disproportional representation to them on the basis of their race, or religion, or sexual orientation, or on whether or not they prefer big, or little-endian notation? Surely, it would only be appropriate that politicians should have cross-demographic appeal to win?

Every argument for why we should give extra influence to voters living in particular zip codes is just as valid, as any argument for giving extra influence to voters based on some other semi-arbitrary distinction.

Rural people have special, marginalized concerns, and are outnumbered by urban voters? Great. So do LGBT people, for example.

You don't get extra consideration for your vote for being a ______. Why should you get it on the basis of geography?

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

#705

Post by Marazan »

hyperpape wrote: post #457
smsm42 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you live in Wyoming, the electoral college does not help you, because your vote is secure. For now. But if Wyoming doesn't like what happens with Republican party, it can change. There's a huge inertia in large parties, so probably won't happen overnight, but it's not a law of nature. From what I've heard, one of the reasons 2016 election went the way it did because Democrats considered certain states (not Wyomi…

I think it was pretty systematic. If you look at 538 ( https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ ), they were pretty accurate predicted which states were most and least likely to vote Trump or Clinton. It's just that in several states where they thought Clinton had a small lead, she lost. Meanwhile, there were no states they thought Trump had a small lead but he lost. The comparative judgments (Wis…

Clinton's internal polling showed they were in trouble in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

In an act of self sabotaging 12-d chess they decided not to campaign there to give the impression they were safe.

As a gambler betting on the election this cost me a lot of money.

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

#706

Post by lagadu »

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…

Furthermore: Ohio is the single strongest predictor of the presidential election winner. Ohio is the only state where the local winner has matched the overall winner since 1960.

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

#707

Post by Marazan »

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…

NPV doesn't reward states at all, it rewards concentrations of people.

States become irrelevant under the NPV.

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

#708

Post by vkou »

ascorbic wrote: post #691
hannasanarion wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why do you think that tyranny of the minority is better?

That's a false dichotomy. The alternative isn't tyranny of the minority, it's a system that takes account of the views of everyone, by forcing candidates to appeal to a wide spectrum of the electorate.

If you want a system to appeal to a wide spectrum of the electorate, there are a large number of dimensions that are far better then geographic address. Gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

For some reason, though, I never see supporters of the electoral college feel that it's right and proper to give equal political power to social minority groups (Only geographical minority groups. As if where you live is more important to your interests than who you are.)

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

#709

Post by verbify »

lagadu wrote: post #706
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…

Furthermore: Ohio is the single strongest predictor of the presidential election winner. Ohio is the only state where the local winner has matched the overall winner since 1960.

I believe that to be a case of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

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

#710

Post by dwd »

tryptophan wrote: post #23
not_a_moth wrote: post #15

An argument I heard recently against this is, if abolished, politicians won't have incentives to campaign in rural territories, and they won't be accountable to rural territories. That basically makes sense. The EC is the only thing that really gives rural territories any stake, as the majority population has shifted to larger urban centers. People who want to get away from the big cities and live a different kind of…

We could implement a proportional representation system, which would make sure that their voices are represented in a far way. If people vote 30/60/10 for parties A/B/C, 30/60/10% of candidates elected would be of that party. Now its more like 45/55/0 or some other random result, based on gerrymandering.

As a thought - what if you gave up The Great Experiment and implemented a Westminster system instead...

The President would become a ceremonial figurehead (directly elected by popular vote or a McGarvie model -see below), sign the bills and maybe still hold but rarely use veto power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGarvie_Model

Disclaimer: Australian so obviously biased

Post reply on HN