Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 115 posts

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#81

Post by claytongulick »

thayne wrote: post #25
baron816 wrote: post #14

I’ve long been in favor of rewriting the constitution. Everyone hates how the government operates—courts are politicized and at risk of being captured, the legislature is at a constant impasse, everything is hyper partisan, the executive is either way too powerful, or not powerful enough. The only things people can point to that they like about the constitution are the first amendment, and sometimes the second and fo…

I remember one of my teachers proudly saying how great the constitution was since it has hardly changed in 200 years. I now realize that while the constitution was great for it's time, the fact that we haven't changed it to apply what we've learned from both our own experience, and that of other democracie, or account for changes in technology and society, is not a good thing.

Do you belive that people have fundamentally changed in the past 200 years?

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#82

Post by aahortwwy »

ultramundane8 wrote: post #70
aahortwwy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right back at you.

Literally your entire comment is based on the assumption that I advocated "a single, winner-take-all-bloc." Elementary reading comprehension in all its scarcity reveals that I never said that. What is your point exactly?

I'm hungover and posted a non-sequitur response to your comment which - as you pointed out - was largely responding to my own imagination. A mental lapse on my part. My bad.

There's a sad irony in the fact that in reminding me to assume good faith you actually did the opposite - assumed I was attacking you rather than having just made a mistake. And now you're rudely suggesting that I lack elementary reading comprehension. Maybe in my current state, sure. Not generally.

Calm down and be kind. Golden rule and all that.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#83

Post by s5300 »

throwawaysea wrote: post #47
compycom wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Consider our inability to coordinate a proper pandemic response, or the current smoke catastrophe spanning the west coast. The problems facing our country are increasingly national in scope, and require coordinated responses at the federal level. I believe our entrenched commitment to federalism and state's rights is going to hold us back more and more in the years ahead.

Why do you think pandemic response or wildfire are national in scope? Both can be handled at the state level. For example California, Oregon, and a Washington could perform necessary controlled burning ( https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-... ) or harvest trees on a timely basis ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-m... ), or at least stay in target with even their exi…

Well, in this specific case, the majority of the forestry in California is owned by the Fed.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#84

Post by threatofrain »

compycom wrote: post #66

One half solution that people don't tend to bring up: massively increase the number of members of congress. The formula for a states representation in the electoral college is {number of senators + number of representatives}. Since the senate is fixed at 2 senators per state, it massively advantages small states in terms of political power per person. The number of representatives per state is currently set at 435, a…

Also deliberation happens behind closed doors and not in front of C-SPAN.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#85

Post by [deleted] »

HideousKojima wrote: post #35
r0s wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should states have more power?

Depends on what you mean by "should." As far as legal, historical, and constitutional reasons go, the original idea of the US was sovereign states under a limited federal government. The federal government inherently had no power except that explicitly granted to it by the constitution. Several part of the constitution (most notably the commerce clause) have been stretched far beyond their original meaning and purpos…

[deleted]

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#86

Post by platz »

HideousKojima wrote: post #4

The fight against the electoral college is one of those things that misses the forest for the trees. The real problem is that too much power has been vested in the federal government (and in the executive branch specifically), and too much power has been taken from the states. People would care a lot less about how the president gets elected if he didn't have so much control over the entire country.

If we had it your way, the surplus states would be fine but the deficit states would crash. That's why when there's a new military contract they often build it in a deficit region, balancing the surplus out. The reason why the the states are "united" is so that the region as a whole is better off than just a few states that do well.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#87

Post by rudiv »

jonathankoren wrote: post #69
olivermarks wrote: post #42

The word democracy doesn't appear anywhere in the US republic's constitution. The USA was set up so that the electoral college had the final say over any populist choice of leadership, ie veto power. This is similar to the way the far more recent unelected EU commissioners are the senior decision and strategy makers. The issue is centralized federalism and how to dilute this.

A republic is a democracy. It’s just one that has a president, and not a king. That’s all it is. It’s not representatives It’s not federalism. It’s just not having a monarch.

I find a lot of Americans display a belief that 'democracy' can only refer to a direct democracy and 'republic' is the accurate term to refer to representational democracies, but with the implication often being that the point of representative democracy (vs direct democracy) is primarily to prevent majoritarianism or 'mob rule'. None of that meshes with my knowledge of political science gleaned from education in my home country (parliamentary system) or in the United States, so I really wonder where this idea began.

As per my knowledge, representative democracies have an advantage over direct democracies primarily in ease of administration and legislation. I don't think there are any particularly strong reasons to suggest representative democracy is less prone to a tyranny of the majority than a direct democracy.

My hypothesis is that the idea is borne out of a necessity to resolve the dissonance between the US founders and constitution being in many ways anti-democratic, with a culture that holds up democracy & freedom as its highest ideals. (democracy in this case defined as it would be in the dictionary)

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#88

Post by scarface74 »

compycom wrote: post #66

One half solution that people don't tend to bring up: massively increase the number of members of congress. The formula for a states representation in the electoral college is {number of senators + number of representatives}. Since the senate is fixed at 2 senators per state, it massively advantages small states in terms of political power per person. The number of representatives per state is currently set at 435, a…

Which doesn’t help since the Senate has far more power than the house. It confirms judges who have lifetime appointments and cabinet members.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#89

Post by scarface74 »

throwawaysea wrote: post #47
compycom wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Consider our inability to coordinate a proper pandemic response, or the current smoke catastrophe spanning the west coast. The problems facing our country are increasingly national in scope, and require coordinated responses at the federal level. I believe our entrenched commitment to federalism and state's rights is going to hold us back more and more in the years ahead.

Why do you think pandemic response or wildfire are national in scope? Both can be handled at the state level. For example California, Oregon, and a Washington could perform necessary controlled burning ( https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-... ) or harvest trees on a timely basis ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-m... ), or at least stay in target with even their exi…

Could the state be allowed to close its borders to other states in the case of Covid?

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#90

Post by scarface74 »

HideousKojima wrote: post #35
r0s wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should states have more power?

Depends on what you mean by "should." As far as legal, historical, and constitutional reasons go, the original idea of the US was sovereign states under a limited federal government. The federal government inherently had no power except that explicitly granted to it by the constitution. Several part of the constitution (most notably the commerce clause) have been stretched far beyond their original meaning and purpos…

Do you know the history of “states rights” in the south?
Post reply on HN