Electoral College Decision Tree • Hacker News Board

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#171

Post by therealjumbo » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 8:53 PM UTC

srtjstjsj wrote: post #159

therealjumbo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem with it is that it's unconstitutional. States are not allowed to make agreements with each other parallel to the system. EDIT: if you can get that many states to agree to it, then you could have just done a constitutional amendment. since all you need for that is for the states to agree, and the senate to agree. Senators come from the states. So... if you can't get it passed that way, it doesn't p…

Which part of the constitution says that?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...

Specifically:

>No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... , enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State

In this case, since such a deal is changing how the president is elected, and changing the balance of power between states and the fed, it could probably be seen as encroaching on federal power. So simply getting congress to pass a resolution approving it (which in theory would solve the "consent of congress") wouldn't fly like it would with an interstate compact dealing with something more mundane and less political like water rights, or mutual deal on air pollution between several neighboring states.

Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not legal advice etc.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#172

Post by 205guy » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #161

rubidium wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electoral college is designed (from the start) to prevent the larger, more populous states from dominating the country. Seems to be working as designed. And doing a good job as a system. Politics is extremely broken, yes. But I don’t think the electoral college is the fault.

there are a few factors. there is the weighting ( how many electoral college votes per citizen) as well as how they get allocated. If California has a single voter more for Biden and Trump, it's the same as if nobody in California voted for Trump. If your state has 100 electoral votes and the voters are split 50-50, the fair thing to do would be to allocate those electoral votes 50-50. Instead it's all winner take al…

But the electors of the electoral college are still not aligned with equal representation because of the various state populations.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would turn the mechanism of the electoral college into a result equivalent to a national popular vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

The wikipedia article doesn't go into details about resolving issue around disenfranchised voters and vote counting, such as hanging chads or uncounted mail-in ballots. In other words, the compact states are binding themselves to a popular vote count that non-compact states have no incentive to get accurate.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#173

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

CyanLite2 wrote: post #160

nick_gur wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TX and FL going blue? Have you seen the early voting? Rs are LEADING in Miami-Dade, a Clinton county. Voter registrations are crazy for GOP in FL and the D-R voter gap is only at around 130,000 (used to be 650,000 when Bush won FL in 2000) Other than polls, I have yet to see any indication that FL will go blue despite going red in 2016 and then electing an R Governor on 2018.

TX has a better chance of going blue than FL. Beto O'Rourke has registered 1.8 million new voters in the past 4 years in the state of Texas, 300k of those were registered in the past 2 weeks. Beto lost Texas by 200k votes. And so far, TX has been killing it in terms of early-voting. About 75%(!!) turnout so far than what they had in 2016. And we still have 11 days left to go before E-day. Biggest turnout percentage i…

[deleted]

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#174

Post by beerandt » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

srtjstjsj wrote: post #159

therealjumbo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem with it is that it's unconstitutional. States are not allowed to make agreements with each other parallel to the system. EDIT: if you can get that many states to agree to it, then you could have just done a constitutional amendment. since all you need for that is for the states to agree, and the senate to agree. Senators come from the states. So... if you can't get it passed that way, it doesn't p…

Which part of the constitution says that?

1) the part that specifically says the states shall choose their own presidential electors. The supreme court has said delegating this power to a popular (statewide) vote is permissable, but when delegated, the vote must adhere to 1 person 1 vote principles. A delegated-power that incorporates the votes of other states likely violates this principal, and is therefore unconstitutional.

2) the part that says no interstate compacts without express approval of congress

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#175

Post by wvenable » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

icegreentea2 wrote: post #169

bloody-crow wrote: post #145

The mere existence of this tool highlights the complexity and opaqueness of the electoral college system compared to the popular vote. You can't expect a layperson to have a somewhat accurate mental model of this probability breakdown and I believe it totally erodes their motivation to vote in the first place.

I don't think the electoral college is that opaque, or complex. It's certainly more complex then a straight popular vote. But consider that there are many many parliamentary systems in the world that have a degree of complexity and subtly on the same order as the electoral college (though the unequal sizes of states does mean the EC is more complex). I certainly don't think the electoral college is a good system for…

If you're in a safe state that's a different political leaning than you are, there isn't much incentive for you to vote. Your vote, for President anyway, is effectively meaningless.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#176

Post by 205guy » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #29

splatcollision wrote: post #14

So the fate of the world rests in the hands of Floridians...

Actually, if you take a look at the graph, you will notice that paths that direct to red leaves are almost all almost entirely red whereas there is a lot of paths to blue leaves that are mostly or even almost entirely red. Or think another way. The largest number of states that can be blue and red still wins is 4. There isn't any combination of any combinations where 5 of selected states are blue and red can still wi…

I believe that the "direct" path of one color and "alternating" path are just a choice of the graphing and not dictated by the data. If you make different node selections, you could make the reverse. Same for the layout of the nicely ordered trees and those that seem more chaotic--it's just a matter of adjusting the layout of the nodes to determine the angles of the edges.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#177

Post by beerandt » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #107

bobthepanda wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is broken is not the number of electoral votes per state but the winner takes all allocation system of the EC. As it stands today winner takes all makes big states like California and small states like Wyoming equally uncompetitive since there’s a snowball’s chance in hell they will ever flip majority the other direction. Proportionally allocating a state’s electoral votes would level the state by state playing…

> you’d need either every state to agree or an amendment. Neither of those is actually necessary because the states decide on their own how their electoral college votes are allocated. In principle Texas or California could allocate their delegates proportional to the popular vote of the people in that state. Which might be in the interests of the people in that state, because then candidates would actually bother to…

Only within the internal context of that state, though. Apportionment based on factors external to the state is likely unconstitutional, based on the voting rights act and resultant scotus decisions.

The supreme court has said (over-simplifying here) that the right to delegate this legislative power to a popular vote is only constitutional when it adheres to 1 person, 1 vote weighting.

Taking into account votes external to that state likely violates this.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#178

Post by titanomachy » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

rubyist5eva wrote: post #164

WorldMaker wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems even more dumb that in the event of a tie the House of Representatives is supposed to vote one vote per state as if it were a dumber Senate. The compromises that led to that setup are weird mistakes. I guess it is good that it is a rare event when the Electoral College ties.

Why is it dumb? The House of Representatives is supposed to proportionally represent the constituencies of the various states. The Senate exists to represent the state legislatures - though the 17th amendment changed that(and I personally believe it should be repealed). It makes sense to me, as the House choosing the President is still a somewhat representation of the will of the people. It's also very similar to Wes…

How does that justify one vote per state? Wouldn't one vote per representative represent the will of the people better?

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#179

Post by timdierks » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

elicash wrote: post #150

dragontamer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> election night, as state results come in. Not this year. With mail-in ballots, the ballots won't necessarily be finalized until a week or more after the election. Its necessary due to COVID19. But it will be until multiple days after the election before we know the true winner. A large number of states will certainly be called on election night (because many states, such as California, are far from competitive). Bu…

All but 8 states can start processing ballots before election day. Unfortunately, 3 of those 8 are MI, WI, PA. So it may take longer for those. Florida will likely be an early sign, since those mail ballots get processed and counted early. IF (and this is a big if) Biden carries Florida on election night, then it's actually possible we know who wins that night.

At least in NY, I don't see how this is possible because I can send in an absentee ballot and then invalidate it by voting on election day in-person. So I don't see how they can open any of the secrecy envelopes, let alone count any ballots, until they've determined if the ballot in the envelope should be counted, and they can't do that until they get the poll book back from my election site at the end of in-person voting. (But maybe NY is one of these 8 states due to this rule?)

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#180

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #144

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you’d need either every state to agree or an amendment. Neither of those is actually necessary because the states decide on their own how their electoral college votes are allocated. In principle Texas or California could allocate their delegates proportional to the popular vote of the people in that state. Which might be in the interests of the people in that state, because then candidates would actually bother to…

Well no state would actually do that of its own free will because it would disadvantage what parties they actually voted for. If two states with 10 electoral votes each are both currently winner takes all, but one votes green and one votes purple; and if only the green state changes to proportional allocation, you move from a scenario where both parties got 10 votes each to a scenario where the green state went 6/4 f…

But it would benefit the people of that state, because it would force both of the candidates to give the people of that state more of what they want, since that can now make the difference between California's 55 electoral votes going 30 to one candidate and 25 to the other, or 45 to one candidate and 10 to the other. And Presidential elections have been decided by less.

Moreover, both of the parties are a product of the election map. If the map changes, it doesn't destroy one of the parties, it changes both of them, to get the balance back. If Republicans started getting 20 of California's delegates, Democrats would change their policies until they were getting those 20 back somewhere else. They'd stop pussyfooting around on climate change so they can save Florida from ending up underwater and put those 29 in the solid blue column, or dump a big jobs program in Ohio and get those, or start paying attention to the plight of the rural poor.

Or the Republicans would realize they could stand to lose some votes they currently have to get, stop being so inconsistent about at the same time claiming to want smaller government while never actually making it smaller, and actually gore somebody's ox.

You need 270 to win. 300 means you gave somebody something you didn't have to. 240 means you didn't give somebody something you did have to.