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

761–770 of 932 posts

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

#761

Post by krapp »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #748
krapp wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (volun…

>'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.

Except no one who talks about "city dwellers" is talking about people living in small towns or suburbs. And if I am living in a city, it doesn't conform to any of the political or cultural assumptions that the urban/rural divide makes about "city dwellers." It also isn't nearly as rural as your definition of "rural," although I've lived in those areas as well. I certainly don't think it would be accurate to lump the culture and community of the town I'm in with LA or New York - certainly people there would consider me rural.

And maybe that's one problem - "city dweller" and "rural" are vague and subjective labels.

>So just call me Mr. Populist Myth I guess.

The myth is that your experience is typical for Americans not living in large cities. It's an outlier, not the norm.

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

#762

Post by newshorts »

ShamelessC wrote: post #320
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…

I'm not in favor of the electoral college, but wouldn't its elimination merely shift this problem to politicians only visiting the most poulated states (e.g. California) anyway?

Should the not focus their attention on the centers with the highest population?

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

#763

Post by JoeAltmaier »

krapp wrote: post #761
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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 (volun…

>'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. Except no one who talks about "city dwellers" is talking about people living in small towns or suburbs. And if I am living in a city, it doesn't conform to any of the political or cultural assumptions that the urba…

Right! We're agreeing. Rural dwellers are outliers; their concerns are not addressed by rules made up in the Capitol City.

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

#764

Post by throwaway_law »

dragonwriter wrote: post #450
m0zg wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want the US to stay whole, that's a big problem. Technically states can secede, or form a separate union if they so desire. That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds.

> Technically states can secede, mlor form a separate union if they so desire. Technically , they can't. There is no provision for secession in the US Constitution. Practically , well, the one notable attempt didn't work out, so not that, either. > That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds…

>There is no provision for secession in the US Constitution.

Yes, but Article I of the UN Charter expressly provides for the right of Self-Determination.

>Practically, well, the one notable attempt didn't work out, so not that, either.

Yes, that resulted in more American deaths than all other US wars combined. However, notably that was also before the UN. Moreover, not only does the UN provide for a right of Self-Determination it also restricts the right for any nation to use force (i.e. armed conflict, Article 2(4)). If a group of people with a well defined territory peacefully secedes, and armed conflict and use of force is implemented to prevent the secession that would violate the UN Charter, use of force and laws of armed conflict.

Obviously one of the best examples case studies of applying international laws and norms to the real world is Palestine, which is recognized by the UN and 193 member nations as an independent State, but Israel does not. Obviously its not as easy as Palestine simply secedes through a democratic vote, as there are all kinds of claims from both sides regarding land disputes, use of force and laws of armed conflict. Still international recognition of Palestine as an independent State is a giant mile stone in the process.

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

#765

Post by WarDores »

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…

This exactly. If the issue is people feeling/being disenfranchised, changing how we elect the President isn't going to help. It just reinforces the idea that we're a monarchy and the job of the rest of the government is to do the will of the President. We can do better than this!

The Presidential horse race every 4 years is mostly for television. Federalism works because you want the decisions that affect your life the most to have the most direct accountability.

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

#766

Post by heedlessly2 »

TylerE wrote: post #328
ShamelessC wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in favor of the electoral college, but wouldn't its elimination merely shift this problem to politicians only visiting the most poulated states (e.g. California) anyway?

I think the whole “visiting” thing is overblown. We have TV and the Internet. This isn’t the 19th century when the only way the average American might EVER see or hear a President would be a short speech off the back of a train car.

No, at the end of the day. People are humans and are affected by face-to-face interactions. Communication via television and internet feels impersonal. When a candidate visits your city, they discuss how your local and state politics tie together. So candidates can personalize their speeches towards a specific region per visit. Some people might not care about this, but many others will

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

#767

Post by alfromspace »

pknopf wrote: post #547
rayiner wrote: post #418

Debates over the electoral college tend to conflate two different things. The original purpose of the electoral college was a compromise between those who wanted the president directly elected, and those who wanted Congress to elect the president. While very small states have a modest edge as a result of using the number of members of Congress to decide the number of electors, the real purpose of the system is to add…

The founding fathers did not predict that a few states would become hyper-partisan and stop giving EC votes proportionally. The few states, early on, did this because they were decidedly red/blue and wanted a bigger say in who is president. A bunch of other states wound up following suit to level the playing field. Now, we have winner-takes-all for almost every state. Now, politicians don't spend time pandering for v…

The founding fathers also didn't want anyone voting but white landowning men who paid property tax.

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

#768

Post by corebit »

your-nanny wrote: post #734
jonas21 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't see this point often enough. People just want to do whatever tweak to the system will get them their short term boost and damn the consequences and long-term thinking.

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

#769

Post by ladyattis »

vturner wrote: post #379
WarDores wrote: post #333

It's not about division of power between rural/urban or big states/small states. The Electoral College is about buffering purely democratic power. The President doesn't represent "the people." He/she represents the interests of the states. The Legislative Branch represents the will of the people (most directly through the House of Representatives). One of the biggest problems is vesting too much power and importance…

I wish someone with $$ would start plastering this message everywhere the absurd "get rid of the elctoral college" debate comes up. We are not a democracy, seriously no one wants a democracy of 300 million plus. We are a federation of states that is supposed to have most of the control in their region and sacrifice a little bit of control to the federal government for purposes of defense and commerce. Your "democracy…

A federation would be fine if it was a proper one. One where cities have an equal position against their state inasmuch as they represent their residents and those residents have more say over the state government as a result. Today, we have a dated system which refuses to update its political infrastructure where it's needed. Now, more than ever, there's a need to make more direct levers of power to the citizens of a given location and less power to the technocrats and bureaucrats which 'represent' them.

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

#770

Post by justin66 »

rayiner wrote: post #418

Debates over the electoral college tend to conflate two different things. The original purpose of the electoral college was a compromise between those who wanted the president directly elected, and those who wanted Congress to elect the president. While very small states have a modest edge as a result of using the number of members of Congress to decide the number of electors, the real purpose of the system is to add…

> the real purpose of the system is to add a layer of indirection to the election of the President, where the states have a say in their capacity as states.

The real purpose of the system was to balance the interests of states who had as many slaves as free people with the interests of states who would have dominated the legislature if representation were determined only by the number of citizens within the state.

Post reply on HN