15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete • Hacker News Board

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#331

Post by eropple » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 10:58 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #257

_vertigo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Tyranny of the minority" gets this issue exactly backwards. The problem the Electoral College was designed to mitigate is a tyranny of the majority. The point they're making is that while it was designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority, it goes too far and results in a tyranny of the minority. > Why do any of these concerns need Federal intervention to solve? Why can't LAC and Arkansas and Nevada manage their…

> No one mentioned federal benefits. Sure you did; you said LAC voters don't have their concerns addressed as well because they are part of a large, populous state whose EC votes count for less per capita. My question is, if LAC is capable of managing its own affairs, why does it care? In other words, you're assuming that the President's job is to "take care of everyone's concerns", so everyone needs an equal vote to…

Even when you take for granted--and we shouldn't, but just for funsies we will--that the whole point of the thing is to make executive decisions about national needs...why the heck should Nevada get a bigger say than Los Angeles County?

It has become evident that the federalist experiment has failed; because an integrated modern society cuts across state lines, while land can't vote and people matter more than land. Everything else is a side effect, no matter how tightly it's clung to by parties whose high-minded rhetoric, if we're being frank, is honored more in the breach than the observance as they look for low-status, low-power people to cudgel, using the guise of federalism to make it easier to do in their own little pond.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#332

Post by RyanAF7 » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 10:58 PM UTC

No he isn't and he won't.

But, it's a good social engineering mechanism to discuss these issues so the next gen and others who don't understand the US thanks to pop culture can learn why the EC is important.

Repeal the 17th Amendment while you're at it and then increase the house reps to 5000 and triple the senators.

Then we'll see how effective or profitable lobbying, campaign finance or gerrymandering is.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#333

Post by WarDores » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 10:59 PM UTC

It's not about division of power between rural/urban or big states/small states. The Electoral College is about buffering purely democratic power. The President doesn't represent "the people." He/she represents the interests of the states. The Legislative Branch represents the will of the people (most directly through the House of Representatives). One of the biggest problems is vesting too much power and importance in the Executive, which was never intended. Throw the balance of power out of whack, and we get these conversations (the President has to represent "the people" and therefore should be elected by popular vote)

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#334

Post by sanxiyn » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 10:59 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #319

The states agreed to the Constitution with the Electoral College provision. If there's national will to change it, it should be through the amendment process described in the Constitution. Having some states band together to subvert the intention of the EC fundamentally breaks the compact of the Constitution. What is the authority of a President chosen through subversion of the Constitution?

Constitution does not specify how states should implement EC. In fact, Maine and Nebraska do not use winner-take-all used by other states.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#335

Post by blackflame7000 » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 10:59 PM UTC

jgeada wrote: post #232

theli0nheart wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are only eight states in America that have more people than Los Angeles county.[2] Why are the concerns of the people living in LAC less important than the concerns of the people in Nevada or Arkansas? What is it about their geography that makes their issues unimportant? Why would Arkansas or Nevada have joined a union of states where their votes mean essentially nothing?

Because Arkansas or Nevada are only really viable economic entities when supported by the much more productive states like California or New York.

Why? Because silicon valley is there? By your standard, Michigan was the most powerful state in the 50s thanks to Detroit.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#336

Post by pfdietz » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 11:00 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #219

thomascgalvin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint to that is that the Electoral College has transferred so much power to rural areas that we are no longer an actual representative democracy. For example, a vote in Wyoming counts 3.6 times more than a vote in California.[1] The people in California are not represented in the Presidential election; it would be more accurate to say that one-quarter of the people in California are represented. "Rural is…

This is somewhat balanced by representation in the other house of Congress. It’s not only the US which has to balance rural vs urban electorates. Some are even further down the spectrum like Japan where rural areas have even larger influence than cities compared to other democracies. But in a way it makes sense. Without people in the countryside the people in the cities would have little to eat. Most countries go to…

That would be a valid concern if food weren't so ridiculously easy to grow. The entire agricultural segment of the US economy is less than 1% of GDP.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#337

Post by rconti » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 11:01 PM UTC

not_a_moth wrote: post #15

An argument I heard recently against this is, if abolished, politicians won't have incentives to campaign in rural territories, and they won't be accountable to rural territories. That basically makes sense. The EC is the only thing that really gives rural territories any stake, as the majority population has shifted to larger urban centers. People who want to get away from the big cities and live a different kind of…

The majority population has shifted to larger urban centers, whose votes don't matter one bit anymore.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#338

Post by WarDores » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 11:01 PM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #302

There are discussions about the electoral college favoring small states. Some people think that's bad, some people think it's good. However, there's a more important issue: that's not really what the electoral college does. It gives a small edge to small states[0]. The much bigger effect is that in every given election, it favors a handful of battleground states over all the rest. If you live in Wyoming, the electora…

Swing states shift, though. California was basically solid red from the 1950s through the 1980s. Until 2016, few people would have called Wisconsin or Michigan "swing states" judging from their voting in the past few elections. People move, demographics change.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#339

Post by jeremyjh » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 11:02 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #328

ShamelessC wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in favor of the electoral college, but wouldn't its elimination merely shift this problem to politicians only visiting the most poulated states (e.g. California) anyway?

I think the whole “visiting” thing is overblown. We have TV and the Internet. This isn’t the 19th century when the only way the average American might EVER see or hear a President would be a short speech off the back of a train car.

That's right. Whats at stake is in which markets and demographics the ad spend goes.

Re: 15 states are trying to make the electoral college obselete

#340

Post by hyperpape » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 11:02 PM UTC

ShamelessC wrote: post #320

hyperpape wrote: post #302

There are discussions about the electoral college favoring small states. Some people think that's bad, some people think it's good. However, there's a more important issue: that's not really what the electoral college does. It gives a small edge to small states[0]. The much bigger effect is that in every given election, it favors a handful of battleground states over all the rest. If you live in Wyoming, the electora…

I'm not in favor of the electoral college, but wouldn't its elimination merely shift this problem to politicians only visiting the most poulated states (e.g. California) anyway?

The answer is probably complicated. Game theoretically, they’ll pay attention[0] to the places where their campaigning has the biggest marginal impact, but that doesn’t immediately tell us much.

That will make big urban areas appealing. However, if you think there are diminishing returns, it should cause them to spread that attention more, avoiding the last month where they repeatedly visit the same state over and over again.

[0] This might or might mean visiting those states.