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

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#111

Post by kthejoker2 »

t0mbstone wrote: post #104
kthejoker2 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supreme Court ruled this year that that's not so, you can't be a faithless elector. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/885168480/supreme-court-rules...

If you can't legally be a faithless elector, then there is no point to having an electoral college. Just let the popular vote decide, since that's how the electoral college is obligated to vote anyways.

Electoral College votes aren't distributed by population; they're distributed based on representation in Congress.

So each state receives 2 electors from the Senate even if only a single person lived in them.

But of course the Electoral College should be abolished.

Because in fact, in a truly dystopian scenario, someone could be elected President with only 44 votes in their favor.

That is, if only one person each voted in the 41 states with the least amount of electors (2 people for Maine and Nebraska which split their EVs) and DC, and all voted for the same candidate, that candidate would receive 280 electoral votes.

Even if the other 9 states voted 100% against that candidate, representing ~100 million voters, our system would declare the first candidate the winner.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#112

Post by rrauenza »

joshuamorton wrote: post #31
rrauenza wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that our current president is a populist and it could be argued that he only didn't win the popular vote because he didn't focus on that, but rather on the electoral college. I think the founding fathers would cite our current president as the reason they didn't trust direct democracy... It's food for thought whenever I think about pushing more towards direct democracy. I've been leaning towards proportional…

> it could be argued that he only didn't win the popular vote because he didn't focus on that, This is exceedingly unlikely. At least not without major platform changes. A trump that appeals to an additional 3-5 million people looks significantly different. > I think the founding fathers would cite our current president as the reason they didn't trust direct democracy This makes even less sense, a more direct democra…

I was thinking more in the lines of the electoral college - there was some wishful thinking as the votes came in by some that the electoral college would be the check and balance this last election. Very wishful.

But the college is there historically because the founders didn't trust direct democracy...

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-elector...

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#113

Post by scarface74 »

username90 wrote: post #98
scarface74 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know the history of “states rights” in the south?

Federally guaranteeing human rights and federally levying significant taxes are two very different things.

The right to tax is also in the constitution....

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#114

Post by rrauenza »

ultramundane8 wrote: post #21
rrauenza wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that our current president is a populist and it could be argued that he only didn't win the popular vote because he didn't focus on that, but rather on the electoral college. I think the founding fathers would cite our current president as the reason they didn't trust direct democracy... It's food for thought whenever I think about pushing more towards direct democracy. I've been leaning towards proportional…

I really can't grant that first paragraph in good faith without some evidence. How could you possibly divine the intent of the 2016 Trump campaign? We still can't agree on a vast number of its actions, let alone its strategy.

A fairer statement might be its a red herring to criticize any campaign for not getting the popular vote when that's not the game they are playing to win.

But you're right -- he might never have actually gotten a popular vote.

Re: The Case for Dumping the Electoral College

#115

Post by jonathankoren »

rudiv wrote: post #87
jonathankoren wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The "We're a republic, not a democracy," comes from the 1930s as an isolationist slogan to argue against getting involved with "the defense of democracies" (the FDR argument) during World War II. From there it became a quip from the John Birch Society to delegitimize a political party. I know that sounds, hyperbolic, but it's true.

Jamelle Bouie recently did yeoman work tracking down it's start.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/opinion/aoc-crenshaw-repu...

Post reply on HN