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

Electoral College Decision Tree

observablehq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 373 posts

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#191

Post by tekkk »

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…

As the other children comments noted, I think the biggest problem of the system is game theory wise that there is no considerable pay-off when voting in a heavily blue or red state.

There should be either a two-tier system with points from winning a state and from getting the most votes, or just straight popular vote. Granted, in that case the smaller states would probably lose meaning but eh. Isn't that what democracy is about? The most popular candidate should win?

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#192

Post by gen220 »

pchristensen wrote: post #163
gen220 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post-Civil War, it also incentivized voter suppression. The southern states benefited from emancipation, insofar as they gained seats in the house and electoral college (they got a 5/3 multiple on their prior proportions, which had only narrowly elected Lincoln pewar). This redistribution of postwar power led to the disaster of 1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877 , something we're still grappling wi…

Such a great and novel idea. I'm sure there are holes in it but the principle is excellent.

Thank you! I hope my government teacher would be proud. :)

I'd love to hear anybody poke holes in this idea. It's a recent one for me. I'm sure they exist, but I haven't come up with them yet.

Obviously, there's the incentive for fraudulent votes. But there's already an incentive for fraudulent votes, and it doesn't seem to cause much of a problem.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#193

Post by gen220 »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #154
gen220 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post-Civil War, it also incentivized voter suppression. The southern states benefited from emancipation, insofar as they gained seats in the house and electoral college (they got a 5/3 multiple on their prior proportions, which had only narrowly elected Lincoln pewar). This redistribution of postwar power led to the disaster of 1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877 , something we're still grappling wi…

I wonder why no one's pushed for making representation based on votes not citizens or residents. That would incentivize states helping everyone vote. (But might also incentivize fraudulent counts)

I've thought of this before, but have no idea. It could be a lack of imagination?

Sadly, it's more likely that both political parties are simply comfortable with the status quo.

The republican party thinks they can gerrymander and voter-suppress their way to power.

The democratic party thinks they can let the republican party self-destruct, since most of their tactics to hold on to power are illegal, especially as the demographics of our country's states become overwhelmingly out of their favor.

But regardless of which party you belong to, I think universal suffrage is one of those rare principles that every American grows up believing in.

As such, especially in 2020, it makes perfect sense to base federal representation on such a shared principle. It would definitely have the effect of moderating our society. It is a natural evolution of a concept we already have (proportional representation). It does away with the grimy roots of that concept (ceding representation to slaveholders).

So, maybe one day.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#194

Post by icegreentea2 »

wvenable wrote: post #175
icegreentea2 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, but for all systems that isn't directly proportionate to popular vote (that means no geographic grouping of representatives), that's true. Parliamentary systems, and both American house of representatives suffer from this failure mode - it's not particular unique to the American presidential election.

Finally, I would not defend the EC as a particularly good system, and certainly from a campaigner's standpoint, its particularly complex to navigate. But from an individual voter's standpoint, the mental model is simple. If you are in a swing state, you especially should vote. Parliamentary systems have concepts of "crucial ridings", which are quite similar.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#195

Post by dlp211 »

therealjumbo wrote: post #153
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is that in order to get a majority of the electoral college delegates into it, you would need states to sign on who benefit from the existing arrangement. You can't get the swing states because the existing system makes them the focus of national politics and you can't get always-red states because the party that controls them benefits from the ext…

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…

> if you can get that many states to agree to it, then you could have just done a constitutional amendment

Uh, no. 38 states have to ratify an amendment in order for it to take effect. You can easily eclipse 270 electoral votes without getting the support of 38 states.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#196

Post by throwaway0a5e »

gen220 wrote: post #190
dragonwriter wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One motivation for Jim Crow laws was to keep the southern voting-sampled portion of the south white and segregationist (in spite of the true distribution of local sentiment), while simultaneously benefiting from the larger population in magnifying their representation in national politics. In theory, there is a (somewhat dated, given other evolutions in voting rights) remedy for that in Section 2 of the Fourteenth…

I totally agree. It comes down to the legal definition of "abridged", "denied", and "crimes". Unfortunately, in the present political climate, any reasonable interpretation of these words that hurts the representation of states with regressive voting laws would be seen as an act of politics. The nice thing about my proposed hack, is that it also incentivizes decriminalization, or at least allowing a broader class of…

>Unfortunately, in the present political climate, any reasonable interpretation of these words that hurts the representation of states with regressive voting laws would be seen as an act of politics.

We've been misinterpreting words like "infringed" and "papers, and effects" for well over a century. The current climate while certainly non-helpful but I think there's a deeper root cause that keeps us from strongly enforcing the constitution.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#197

Post by speeder »

CyanLite2 wrote: post #157
dragontamer wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that if Texas goes blue, I think its safe to say that Biden won the election. But I also think that Texas going for Biden is very small: Trump is still leading by 2% or so by official polls. Its important to push Texas a little bit since there's a chance for victory. In the most likely event: Texas goes red (as it has gone for the past several decades), and we're left wondering about Florida, Ohio, and P…

Florida is one of the few states that are reporting mail-in ballots the night of the election. They've already started counting them and tabulating the results. After polls close, they press a button and it spits out the final results. With early voting getting nearly 60% of all registered voters in FL, I suspect we'll get 99% of precincts reporting FL numbers within 30-45 minutes after the polls close. Thus, I perso…

The signature verification part was dropped by court. And to be honest I don't understand why.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#198

Post by foota »

0x964 wrote: post #104
dragontamer wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that if Texas goes blue, I think its safe to say that Biden won the election. But I also think that Texas going for Biden is very small: Trump is still leading by 2% or so by official polls. Its important to push Texas a little bit since there's a chance for victory. In the most likely event: Texas goes red (as it has gone for the past several decades), and we're left wondering about Florida, Ohio, and P…

I think it would need to be a lot closer than 2%. Obama won Florida by 0.88% in 2012[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidentia...

Sure, but to call it early requires a blow out.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#199

Post by throwaway0a5e »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #180
bobthepanda wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>But it would benefit the people of that state

But that doesn't matter because the specific individuals who would have to enact is are just as much if not more beholden to their party than to the the people.

I agree with what you said about changing the parties policies though.

Re: Electoral College Decision Tree

#200

Post by iainmerrick »

CyanLite2 wrote: post #157
dragontamer wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that if Texas goes blue, I think its safe to say that Biden won the election. But I also think that Texas going for Biden is very small: Trump is still leading by 2% or so by official polls. Its important to push Texas a little bit since there's a chance for victory. In the most likely event: Texas goes red (as it has gone for the past several decades), and we're left wondering about Florida, Ohio, and P…

Florida is one of the few states that are reporting mail-in ballots the night of the election. They've already started counting them and tabulating the results. After polls close, they press a button and it spits out the final results. With early voting getting nearly 60% of all registered voters in FL, I suspect we'll get 99% of precincts reporting FL numbers within 30-45 minutes after the polls close. Thus, I perso…

If Biden wins Florida, Biden has very likely won the whole election, but if Trump wins Florida it becomes a toss-up. So I think we’ll only know the result early if it’s Biden.
Post reply on HN