How is this tech related?
15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete
731–740 of 932 posts
Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete
#732Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 in…
because the US is a union of quasi independent states. US government is built around that fact. The Senate, for example, represents each state equally Originally and by intent these were chosen by state legislatures. Similarly, originally and by intent, states governments play a large role in how Presidents get elected. Personally, I think the changes we've made have confused people about the basic theory of our constitutional system. People should be asking: why do we have states.
Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete
#733Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't urban (and thus more dense dense) centers of population trend less white? Wouldn't it discourage discrimination against mionorities?
"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
Well, there's that Constitution you Muricans keep harping on about :D On a more serious note, really, your Constitution should help with that.
Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete
#734There 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…
Wyoming gets 7 electoral votes per million people, while New York gets only 1.9. That's a 3.6x difference -- I would hardly call that a "small" edge.
Wyoming is a state and this country is a union of states, not acres, or arbitrary units of population. We've failed to communicate the actual point of all this, which is to make sure each state--and not population districts--get representation at the federal level. If you have a problem with all this you should be asking: why do we need states?
Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete
#735Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you removed only California from the popular vote then Hillary lost. The share number of people there still cause Hillary to get the popular vote. Is it fair that 1 state has a controlling share over every other state?
And if you remove Texas, Hillary would have won by an even larger margin. What is your point?
EC works as intended.
Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete
#736Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
yes. state governments elected Presidents, and that is a good way to avoid populists.
Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete
#737Earlier 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.
How do you take into account the views of everyone, when different segments of the electorate sometimes have irreconcilable desires and views, and not wind up with "tyranny" of some sort simply by having to set some policy that can't please everyone?
Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete
#738Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. So I guess you're totally OK with the current system where they spend all their time in Florida & other swing states because the others don't matter...
This is a false premise candidates do not ‘spend all their time in florida’
Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete
#739Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They'll spend more time campaigning in the areas with the most people who can be convinced to change their votes. This isn't necessarily going to be the highest population areas, as those areas tend to be solidly liberal. I don't know why the electoral college would be better at identifying high need areas than willingness to change your vote. Shouldn't people who need help be more likely to change their vote than to…
This isn't necessarily true.
If a 10m pop area has a 70-30 split, it's still better to campaign there than a 5m pop area with a 50-50 split. In absolute numbers it's still 3 million supporters versus 2.5 million supporters.
Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete
#740I always hear people complain about the electoral college, but I've never once heard a detailed, objective argument as to why they think a popular vote would be a better system. Friends I've talked to about just seem to default to a majority system because it seems more 'fair', or its easier to understand? I dont know. In the USA, I think we are conditioned to belive in the democratic process, so I guess it feels 'na…
There’s a lot of reasons for it on the movements official site: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
Thanks, I'll check it out. This is the group from the article? I admittedly didn't read it because of the paywal. Just lurking in the comments :)