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

How to Fix the Electoral College

federicolopriore.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#101

Post by int_19h »

Ekaros wrote: post #91
int_19h wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our problem isn't that there's a lack of ideas on how to reform. It's that said reform requires amending the constitution, which in US is contingent on 3/4 of states (specifically, their legislatures) ratifying the amendment. It is a very high bar in general, but is especially hard to break through when what you propose is virtually certain to change the balance of political power in the country.

In this case isn't it up to states to decide how they select electors? So in sense, nothing stops any state from assigning them in some proportional manner. And one could even ask, if it is electors who decide why not get them campaign? Not voting for president, but voting for person who votes for president. Isn't that the intention of EC anyway?

The states can assign them proportionally, but why would they? Again, when we say "the state", this really means state legislature. And, generally speaking, control of state legislature correlates pretty strongly with popular presidential vote in that state. So why would the party that controls the state, and which currently gets all of its electoral votes, effectively volunteer to surrender some of them to their political enemies?

Now, if one party generally expects to win the national popular vote more often than not, it might sign up for such a scheme on the condition that other states do - this is what the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is. But, by the same token, it means that the other party would generally expect to lose the national popular vote, and thus would do the best it can to block such a proposal from going forward by preventing states under its control from joining (or by other means; e.g. North Dakota actually passed a law to block release of its popular vote data until after EC vote specifically to disrupt NPVIC).

Thing is, nobody in position of power today actually cares what the "real intention" of EC is or ever was. The only thing that matters today is winning elections, and so a bipartisan agreement on any electoral reform that upsets the existing balance of power is extremely unlikely.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#102

Post by analog31 »

big-green-man wrote: post #100
analog31 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, and hopefully not to politicize, I belong to the Democratic Party. I think the Democrats fell out of love with the electoral college years ago. Likewise with gerrymandering. Even if we may have been complicit in creating those systems. At this point, of course there's always a risk that something could go awry, but I'm willing to accept the risks inherent in a one-person-one-vote system -- essentially an…

Well, of by "awry" you mean that, as has happened this year, the Republicans get the majority popular vote, then it's not really a principled stance on the fairness or little d democratic effectiveness of the electoral college. If you're fine with still losing elections, I can't say you're unprincipled. Both parties gerrymander. Both parties engage in "principled" discussions supporting positions seeking only expedie…

By "awry" I mean that one party gets the popular vote, the other party wins the election, which didn't happen this time. I'm not contesting this election, though I think it's a disaster.

It's true that the Democrats gerrymander. I think it gives them an advantage in Illinois and Massachusetts. I'm personally willing to give that up, and let my party take its chances in an elective republic.

I agree that your preferred method makes sense. I can't think of another way.

I don't believe that the House represents the people. In my state, the House delegation, and the state legislature, are effectively chosen by the ruling party through gerrymandering. This could be found to be illegal, since the Constitution requires the states to have a republican form of government. But I'm not sure I'm willing to take my chances with letting the Supreme Court decide on this right now.

I think that eliminating gerrymandering might have an impact on policy, since both parties would have to change how they appeal to voters.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#103

Post by big-green-man »

analog31 wrote: post #102
big-green-man wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, of by "awry" you mean that, as has happened this year, the Republicans get the majority popular vote, then it's not really a principled stance on the fairness or little d democratic effectiveness of the electoral college. If you're fine with still losing elections, I can't say you're unprincipled. Both parties gerrymander. Both parties engage in "principled" discussions supporting positions seeking only expedie…

By "awry" I mean that one party gets the popular vote, the other party wins the election, which didn't happen this time. I'm not contesting this election, though I think it's a disaster. It's true that the Democrats gerrymander. I think it gives them an advantage in Illinois and Massachusetts. I'm personally willing to give that up, and let my party take its chances in an elective republic. I agree that your preferre…

Yes, currently the house, and to a good degree everything else including state governments, represent the parties. Supposedly parties represent their members by proxy as an unofficial institution, but I think you and I would agree that that is naively optimistic to believe.

Requiring representatives to represent a maximum number of people wouldn't eliminate gerrymandering, but it would significantly reduce it's efficacy. I think, districting based on geography is the ultimate cause of the problem, the theory goes that people in close proximity share interests, but we see that that's not really optimal. It would be nice if something like, people can form groups together in a state that would function like districts, with a maximum number of members, and a maximum number of groups based on the number of representatives in the state (which is of course a function of the total population in the state), and elect theirs, basically let the people self organize and voluntarily associate so they can maximize their representation. I'm sure there are unforeseen consequences to that, like unions dominating many representative groups, or issues local to a small region going unaddressed, but it's interesting to think about and there is an optimal solution to the gerrymandering issue that requires us to change the way we think of a representative constituency.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#105

Post by superfrank »

starik36 wrote: post #51
superfrank wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not and that's the point. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a way to choose the president by popular vote without the overhead of removing the electoral college. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

So then it should be called "Popular Vote" and not "Interstate Compact". It just obfuscates the issue.

It's called the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". The Interstate Compact part just means that it's a legally binding agreement between states.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#106

Post by kcplate »

litoE wrote: post #8

Another approach that is in the works is the so-called States Compact whereby each state would assign all its electors to the candidate that gets the most votes nationwide . This has the advantage that no change to the Constitution is needed. Currently, several States have agreed to this, and the Compact will be activated once enough States sign on that provide more than the 270 electoral votes required to win the el…

I predict that this all goes away now with a Trump popular vote win. This tends to only gain support and media coverage when Democrats were winning popular vote but were losing the Electoral college.

If you overlay the existing states that have passed the NPVIC over what Harris won, all but MN went blue. If the compact was active for 2024 with the current participating states, Harris would have only received the VA and NH electoral wins for a total of 17 votes. Trump would have 521 votes.

Post reply on HN