15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete • Hacker News Board

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

#921

Post by notSupplied » Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #587

delecti wrote: post #580

Earlier 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

You can be a minority because you live in a small state,

or because you are LGBT,

or because you are black,

or because you have a disability.

But the small-state kind of minority seems to be the only one who deserves electoral protection from tyranny of the majority. Oh what a coincidence then, that these minorities also happen to be mostly white, christian, and straight.

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

#922

Post by amaccuish » Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

Questions like this push me more and more to the idea that places like China have got governance nailed. Why bother about all this? It's disorder for little gain.

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

#923

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Aug 24, 2019, 11:58 PM UTC

jki275 wrote: post #920

dragonwriter wrote: post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, the 3/5 compromise was forced on the slave states to reduce their power in federal decision making To claim it reduced their power is false. It was less than they preferred, and more than the free states preferred The argument for any consideration of slaves in apportionment included the arguments GP puts forward.

No, it is not false. The standard would have been that the slaves would have counted for representation purposes, which would have given the slave states the power to ensure slavery continued. The compromise reduced their power drastically and paved the way for slavery to eventually end.

> The standard would have been that the slaves would have counted for representation purposes

No, there is no basis for even asserting that there was a standard, much less that the standard was that property, whether slaves, cattle, or horseshoes, would count for representation purposes.

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

#924

Post by jki275 » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 2:12 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #923

jki275 wrote: post #920

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not false. The standard would have been that the slaves would have counted for representation purposes, which would have given the slave states the power to ensure slavery continued. The compromise reduced their power drastically and paved the way for slavery to eventually end.

> The standard would have been that the slaves would have counted for representation purposes No, there is no basis for even asserting that there was a standard, much less that the standard was that property, whether slaves, cattle, or horseshoes, would count for representation purposes.

Ok, since you don't like my phrasing, the argument from the slave states was that slaves should count, which would have given them greater representation.

My statements stand.

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

#925

Post by JohnClark1337 » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

Need to make sure the undocumented immigrants have a vote first if you want to prevent the Republicans from ever getting a seat again

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

#926

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

jki275 wrote: post #924

dragonwriter wrote: post #923

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The standard would have been that the slaves would have counted for representation purposes No, there is no basis for even asserting that there was a standard, much less that the standard was that property, whether slaves, cattle, or horseshoes, would count for representation purposes.

Ok, since you don't like my phrasing, the argument from the slave states was that slaves should count, which would have given them greater representation. My statements stand.

> My statements stand.

No, they don't, because they assume the slave state argument wasn't just their argument but a privileged default position, such that giving them something that was a compromise between what they wanted and what the free states wanted was a harm to them from the privileged default and not an inducement to keep them in.

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

#927

Post by squirrelicus » Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

koboll wrote: post #908

squirrelicus wrote: post #905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not possible to create a non arbitrary system. You may attempt to create what appears to you to be a more parsimonious system, but know, at least, that in doing so you will change the fundamental power dynamic. Thank God we need the consent of a supermajority of Congress and 3/4ths of the states to change the electoral college. It's not going to happen, just give it up.

Once enough states join the National Popular Vote compact to clear 270 electors, the electoral college will be nullified in practice. It may take a couple more decades, but it'll happen eventually.

Don't worry. The first time a Republican wins the popular vote, but Democrat carries the state, people will cry about their vote not being counted in THAT race, will drop out of the compact fast, and electors will probably defect no matter what the state does. NPV doesn't really solve the problem.

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

#928

Post by jki275 » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 12:33 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #926

jki275 wrote: post #924

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, since you don't like my phrasing, the argument from the slave states was that slaves should count, which would have given them greater representation. My statements stand.

> My statements stand. No, they don't, because they assume the slave state argument wasn't just their argument but a privileged default position, such that giving them something that was a compromise between what they wanted and what the free states wanted was a harm to them from the privileged default and not an inducement to keep them in.

That's what we call word salad.

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

#929

Post by brigandish » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 12:43 AM UTC

notSupplied wrote: post #921

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

You can be a minority because you live in a small state, or because you are LGBT, or because you are black, or because you have a disability. But the small-state kind of minority seems to be the only one who deserves electoral protection from tyranny of the majority. Oh what a coincidence then, that these minorities also happen to be mostly white, christian, and straight.

Any of those minority groups can move to a small state (states being the usual voting boundary). White, christian, and straight cannot become those groups.

Would a register for who is LGBT be a good idea? Would you support laws and voting based on ethnic background and/or skin colour?

Why do these ideas sound dangerous?

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

#930

Post by jki275 » Mon, Aug 26, 2019, 11:55 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #926

jki275 wrote: post #924

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, since you don't like my phrasing, the argument from the slave states was that slaves should count, which would have given them greater representation. My statements stand.

> My statements stand. No, they don't, because they assume the slave state argument wasn't just their argument but a privileged default position, such that giving them something that was a compromise between what they wanted and what the free states wanted was a harm to them from the privileged default and not an inducement to keep them in.

To be clear, there was no "privileged default", the "default" was that everyone counted. The 3/5 compromise was forced on the slave states to reduce their power from the default. It was not an "inducement", they were forced into it.