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

741–750 of 932 posts

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

#741

Post by krapp »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #559
krapp wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When the "urban/rural" divide is brought up in American political discourse, it's always done so describing extremes. Yet living in a city - even a large city, doesn't always mean living in an urban "pressure cooker," nor does living outside of a city mean seeing more wildlife than people. I live in a suburb of Austin. I don't hunt my own food or drink from a well, nor am I surrounded by concrete jungle.

The premise that urban and rural dwellers generally have such radically divergent ways of life that it's infeasible for a single entity to govern both is a bit of a populist myth.

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

#742

Post by your-nanny »

sp527 wrote: post #96
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…

Nothing you said provides an argument against equally weighting each citizen’s vote at the federal level. States have select powers over the federal government that are specifically provided by our Constitution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights . When you vote in local elections, you are in effect in control of certain outcomes within your state, as accorded by our Constitution. The federal election d…

because it's representing the states themselves in addition to the population that happen to live in them. if you don't like all this you really should ask: why have states at all?

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

#743

Post by geggam »

nostrademons wrote: post #671
hannasanarion wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Electoral College lets the minority choose the president against the will of the Majority. That is called tyranny of the minority. I want to know why you think that's a good thing.

So, for one, I don't - I'm mildly in favor of direct popular votes combined with some form of runoff voting (either IRV, STV, or approval voting). But I also get the arguments of people that say that without the electoral college, there is zero incentive for politicians to campaign in or pay attention to the interests of people in lightly-populated area. And I think that is a bad thing - whenever you completely disen…

Do you think you are represented by the current system ? You get to complain about being in jail when you are in jail but when you are innocent and complaining does that make it better ?

Ballotpedia's congressional approval polling average: 20% (August 21, 2019)

Cambridge Analytica has shown the method to manipulate any political system. We are in for an "interesting" future.

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

#744

Post by carry_bit »

kevingadd wrote: post #534
carry_bit wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do states currently trust that other states hold fair elections to determine how their electors vote? I don't see any change here. Currently the effects of any illegal voting are contained to the state that the illegal voting happened in; North Dakota's electors aren't going to vote differently even if there are 6 million illegal votes in California. With an NPV that isn't the case.

Why would there be 6 million illegal votes in California? That's a pretty far-fetched premise to base your voting system arguments on.

There are those on the right that think over a million of illegal votes happen (based on estimates of number of illegal aliens, surveys of if they vote, lack of voter ID in certain states, etc.)

The current system is resistant to these concerns, so the lack of a nation-wide voter ID is less important than it would be with a national popular vote.

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

#745

Post by abstractbarista »

jonas21 wrote: post #392
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…

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.

Ahh but WY has 0.577M people while NY has 8.623M! Thus, NY still has more "pull" than WY. Electoral college just helps level the field a bit.

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

#746

Post by IgorPartola »

kingkawn wrote: post #698
danieltillett wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is probably cheaper to buy off a large number of low-power reps than a smaller number of high power ones

I don’t know. Russia seems to have bought McConnell no problem.

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

#747

Post by the6threplicant »

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…

Isn't that the whole point of the Senate?

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

#748

Post by JoeAltmaier »

krapp wrote: post #741
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When the "urban/rural" divide is brought up in American political discourse, it's always done so describing extremes. Yet living in a city - even a large city, doesn't always mean living in an urban "pressure cooker," nor does living outside of a city mean seeing more wildlife than people. I live in a suburb of Austin. I don't hunt my own food or drink from a well, nor am I surrounded by concrete jungle. The premise…

'A suburb of Austin' may not be rural by many definitions. Its another city? Look at a map. See all those spaces between a city and its suburbs, and the next city and its suburbs? That's where 'rural' is.

I can see half a mile in any direction, and not see another human habitation. Clearly this is rural. And clearly, things around here work a little differently from a city. For instance, I pay for fire service (volunteer fire association; I donate). I essentially don't have police service except for cleaning up after major catastrophes (half a dozen sheriffs per 100 square miles). I saw an eagle swoop by my kitchen window the other night, with a rabbit in its claws (yeah eagle! I'm a gardener). When the deer get out of hand harvesting my garden before I do, I'm allowed to shoot them. With one of my guns, a bigger one because the little ones are for varmints like rabbit, skunk, rats, the occasional badger.

My interactions with a neighbor are purely voluntary, because other than annual discussions about fences (and the fireman's ball) we have little we need to talk about. There are no association rules; there are no inspections nor even inspectors. If my neighbor parks a bunch of trailers behind his windbreak in an ugly rusting mess, go neighbor. I guess I'll just plant a row of trees and wait 10 years to mask the view in that direction.

So just call me Mr. Populist Myth I guess.

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

#749

Post by Nasrudith »

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.

To be snide have they ever actually gone to the highest need areas? It has always gone towards whatever bloc will win them the most influence. The Dustbowl wasn't a major election campaign area - neighboring governors had to be told that they couldn't use the national guard to keep out US citizens at gunpoint.

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

#750

Post by krapp »

nilkn wrote: post #480
krapp wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but the solution here is to understand and address why so many millions of people voted for him, Why? They elected Trump to address those concerns. If he can't or won't, the rest of the country is under no obligation to do so on his behalf.

The above poster is saying that Trump shouldn't have been allowed to be president because he didn't win the popular vote. This means that, under the above poster's scheme, they wouldn't have any president fighting for them at all, and I doubt CA would suddenly start caring about them were that the case. I see this as an abandonment of the poor in favor of the rich and powerful. If Trump fails, then he fails. But that…

>I see this as an abandonment of the poor in favor of the rich and powerful.

Trump represents the rich and powerful, though, arguably more so than Hillary Clinton, who's rich and elite but not even in the same league as Trump, or as entrenched with multinational business interests (although as far as the common voter is concerned, the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire may be irrelevant.)

And realistically, electing any President based on a laundry list of partisan grievances is going to disenfranchise the rest of the country. The Electoral College is no more or less fair than a popular vote in that regard.

Post reply on HN