Live data from Hacker News

512 Paths to the White House

nytimes.com

131–140 of 175 posts

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a joke? What you're proposing is almost fundamentally contradictory to the principles the nation was founded upon. Banning bias? No "trashing" other candidates? No polling? No public endorsements? Incumbent can't run? You propose some of the most egregious restrictions on freedom of speech I've ever heard of. Only can use government money to campaign (and not their own)? Can only visit state capitals once? Ca…

No, it wasn't made in jest. Obviously arriving at a systems that could work well would require intelligent discussion of all kinds of proposals point by point. I am more than prepared to accept that some aspects of what I rattled-off in five minutes of typing could be bad ideas. It's not like I spend every waking hour of my life thinking about this. It's almost exactly the opposite. My point is that what we see today…

> I'll self-appoint as an intelligent voter. I think you might be one too. The problem is that not everyone is.

That sounds like a dictatorship.

> Steven Hawking --or someone like him-- could never become president.

FDR and polio.

Anyways, the fundamental problem with your proposal is that every candidate is still going to be inclined to act as close as possible to how they currently act while still staying with in the rule established. They will want to do this because that is how they get votes. The problem is the electorate not the candidates or the system, the people get the candidate they collectively want, and in many ways deserve.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your point, but have a strong suspicion that the election would just be fought out on TV to an even greater extent, with more mudslinging and rumor-mongering. Traditional city/country campaign rallies would become a fixture, but mainly as audience competitions. But the internet and broadcast media would become more critical than ever, and accuracy or integrity haven't exactly been at a premium in large-scale el…

I'll take mudslinging and rumor-mongering over harmful subsidies to e.g., corn.

Reforming the electoral college isn't going to make the legislature disappear.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#133
post #60

Well I guess it's that time in the cycle again: for people to complain about the electoral college (disclaimer: I'm not American). Over the years in different elections in different countries I've heard this complaint [1] > The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. Translation: > It's unfair that I don't get my way even though I'm in the minority. Also, thi…

You cannot mandate voting in the U.S. because the sovereign right to rule originates with the people. The government simply does not have the legal authority to mandate such a thing, any more than it has the legal authority to force people to speak if they don't want to.

The government definitely has the legal authority to force people to speak if they don't want to. It's called a subpoena.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#135
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are entitled to your dubious opinions but please do not try to change history. All newspapers agreed that Gore won Florida. What they said was that the Gore vs Bush decision would not have made a difference. That is because in his legal case Gore chose the wrong Florida counties where to request a recount. But if all votes were counted, Gore won. Um, not quite; you've misstated the conclusion of the news organi…

From your own link: "But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. " So I am right.

If you want to see real election fraud, then look no further than Chicago in 1960 [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#136
post #60

Well I guess it's that time in the cycle again: for people to complain about the electoral college (disclaimer: I'm not American). Over the years in different elections in different countries I've heard this complaint [1] > The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. Translation: > It's unfair that I don't get my way even though I'm in the minority. Also, thi…

> The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. Translation: > It's unfair that I don't get my way even though I'm in the minority. Nonsense! The least you should have done is actually reply to my post rather than do a drive-by with your own imaginary conclusions. Here it is: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4736105 This --and the statement you refer to and…

> This is also about making it possible for anyone to run for office... Do you know how many super-smart people have the personality of a brick?

I don't understand this line of thinking. Do you believe Steve Wozniak would make a better president than Steve Jobs? Leadership often requires a strong dose of charisma and moxie. Those geniuses without people skills make great advisors.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#137
post #67
post #60

Well I guess it's that time in the cycle again: for people to complain about the electoral college (disclaimer: I'm not American). Over the years in different elections in different countries I've heard this complaint [1] > The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. Translation: > It's unfair that I don't get my way even though I'm in the minority. Also, thi…

"It exists to avoid a deadlock." What do you mean? Tight popular votes at most require a runoff between the two most popular candidates. If anything, this [1] 2004 NYT article gives the traditional reason: "The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an important role in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the interests of small states." But it goes on to convincingly counter: "A few years…

Some would argue that the electoral college was actually designed to create deadlock so that congress would often choose the president [1]. That's in fact how it used to work--especially prior to the 12th amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_Sta...

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. Translation: > It's unfair that I don't get my way even though I'm in the minority. Nonsense! The least you should have done is actually reply to my post rather than do a drive-by with your own imaginary conclusions. Here it is: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4736105 This --and the statement you refer to and…

> This is also about making it possible for anyone to run for office... Do you know how many super-smart people have the personality of a brick? I don't understand this line of thinking. Do you believe Steve Wozniak would make a better president than Steve Jobs? Leadership often requires a strong dose of charisma and moxie. Those geniuses without people skills make great advisors.

Given those two choices, I don't know. We don't know enough about their views across a wide range of topics outside of technology.

You might want to go back and research presidents before television and the internet. Some of the most effective ones had pretty shitty personalities and habits. Today they'd never make it.

My only argument is that we are probably keeping a lot of really good candidates from participating in the process because the focus is on whether or not you look great and do well in a talk show and give it to the other guy in a debate rather than what really matters.

Here's an imperfect analogy. I've been sailing since, well, forever. I'll go out in almost any weather because I have confidence in my abilities. As long as the boat is in good shape and can handle it, I can. I am also pretty good at sailing when there's almost no wind, when you really have to optimize things to generate propulsion with almost no power available.

I see lots of people at the marina who come out with the latest gear. They look good. No, they look great. Beautiful shirts, and marine coats and boots and brand new lines on the boat, perfect new sails and all the gear sparkles. But they can't sail worth a damn. They motor out of the marina, put up the sails, go around and around a few times and motor back in. All show and no go. Don't even ask them to go sailing at night. They'll piss in their Gucci pants.

These people show well, talk the talk and seem to walk the walk but are worthless as far as sailing is concerned. I know this all too well, I did an island crossing one time with one of these folks and it nearly cost me my life as I was hanging on to the boom while reefing in a storm 'cause the idiot didn't know how to keep the thing into the wind.

My point is that the system we have in place today gives zero room to those with real expertise. Look at Obama as one example: Not one company would have hired him to even run a cookie baking operation in 2008. Yet, he got the country to run. Are we morons or what? And how about little-Bush? Do I even need to get into how moronic it was for someone like that to be on a ticket? And, Sarah Palin? Really? Are we all a bunch of lobotomized robots or is it the system?

My admittedly flawed ideas straight from utopia seek to change things up so that other people, those who can really sail, might have a chance to get the helm. It should not cost a billion dollars to run for president. We should use the Internet to allow lots of people to participate in the contest and let voters engage in a fact-based search that takes a whole year. It's almost like these dating services that don't let you meet in person or see pictures of each other until successful and valuable interaction has taken place over a period of time.

Anyhow, it will never happen. Politicians have too much invested in keeping their sweet rides going. I swear that some of these people would be selling used cars if they didn't have an opening into politics.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#139
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a citizen, you're allowed full freedoms but if you're running for office, it's reasonable to ask you to adhere to certain restrictions so the process doesn't get corrupted. We ask people who hold certain positions in government and the public sector to give up some freedoms while holding their job (CIA, military and Pentagon personnel, certain contractors, etc.), I think it's fair to ask people to give up some res…

Who gets to decide whether or not candidates adhered to these restrictions? Can you imagine if an "election oversight board" penalized a candidate for "unfair communications"? Jesus, that would be tied up in courts for years.

They've done it in the UK. I'm not saying it's exactly how we should do it here but it's something that should be considered.

"The consequences, the judges made immediately clear, were serious. “Allegations of an illegal practice in elections,” they wrote in their full judgement, “have what are in effect penal consequences.” As such, the May election Woolas won by 103 votes was declared void, and he was barred from the House of Commons and any elective office for three years."

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ryan-gallagher/woola...

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#140
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That hardly reflects the will of the people in the context of a /national/ election. Federal.

Well, actually I used the term "national" to try to distinguish it from senate and congressional races. The term "federal election" may in the minds of many include senate and congressional races, both of which are decided exclusively by the vote within the state and aren't part of this discussion. Had I said "federal election" I would have undoubtedly been corrected on that point as well.

I was trying to make the point that it's not an accident of history that the President isn't elected by popular vote, but for good reasons. The President isn't running just a big collection of people, he's running a union of states. The states send electors to choose the President, and each state take popular opinion into account by way of the popular vote.

This is good because it means that each state's interest is represented (though the fact that only swing states get the focus is something that should be addressed). I live in Rhode Island and I like that we get some consideration. Large low-population states are another consideration.

...and on posting my reply I see this was already addressed very well in an earlier reply to a parent comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4737359

Post reply on HN