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

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#61

Post by xnx »

627467 wrote: post #55
bwanab wrote: post #31

Historically the electoral college was a compromise that allowed for the counting of slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of taxation and voting without having them vote. Consider a state like South Carolina which at the time had about 50% of its population as black. How could the 3/5 of the 50% of the people get added to the total otherwise? Any method would be a hack, but this one had the benefit of being able…

> If you're American living in one of the majority of states that aren't "swing" states, I don't think you can escape the feeling when you vote for president that you're going through a kind of charade since the winner is going to be determined by some small number of voters in 6 states. I don't get the repeating of this perspective, didn't he win the popular vote this time? How did "small number of voters in 6 state…

> People don't know how to lose.

Completely agree. So much "stop the steal", fake electors" and storm the capitol nonsense.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#62

Post by xnx »

flopriore wrote: post #7
krunck wrote: post #6

We need to solve the problem where the system breaks when there are more than two parties: the "spoiler vote".[1] It is the single largest problem facing American democracy. Dump the electoral college system and start from scratch. Look to real democracies like Europe where they use ranked choice voting - also called instant runoff voting.[2] [1] https://fairvote.org/defining-the-spoiler-effect/ [2] https://electionl…

Yeah, spoiler vote brings to 2 parties (like the US). Although the current electoral college doesn't work well, I'm not sure the Americans would prefer to remove it completely and rather use directly popular vote because in the rural areas they don't want to be "governed" by the decisions of big cities. What do you think about keeping the electoral college and use IRV instead?

> in the rural areas they don't want to be "governed" by the decisions of big cities.

And cities don't want to be governed by the outsized importance of small population states (Wyoming)

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#63

Post by [deleted] »

627467 wrote: post #55
bwanab wrote: post #31

Historically the electoral college was a compromise that allowed for the counting of slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of taxation and voting without having them vote. Consider a state like South Carolina which at the time had about 50% of its population as black. How could the 3/5 of the 50% of the people get added to the total otherwise? Any method would be a hack, but this one had the benefit of being able…

> If you're American living in one of the majority of states that aren't "swing" states, I don't think you can escape the feeling when you vote for president that you're going through a kind of charade since the winner is going to be determined by some small number of voters in 6 states. I don't get the repeating of this perspective, didn't he win the popular vote this time? How did "small number of voters in 6 state…

[deleted]

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#64

Post by krapp »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #56

I still can't support changing the electoral college. A few cities deciding the election for everyone feels horribly unfair, and undemocratic. Maybe the EC isn't perfect, but it certainly forces politicians to at least care what people in Iowa, Vermont, and Nevada have to say. It works because of the state system.

>I still can't support changing the electoral college. A few cities deciding the election for everyone feels horribly unfair, and undemocratic.

... unless those cities are in Iowa, Vermont, and Nevada, in which case you're fine with it?

I mean, the EC is so unfair and undemocratic that Presidential candidates avoid states entirely where the political calculus says they simply won't matter. And it's ridiculous to assume that when a candidate does show up in a diner in Iowa to order whatever meal their campaign staff says will most appeal to the locals, work on an assembly line, or whatever, that they actually care about anything those voters have to say.

They don't have to care about the voters, they just have to care about the numbers. Remove the EC and the voters actually matter.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#65

Post by fsckboy »

xnx wrote: post #60
627467 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, it's always the sore losers who complain about this. There's are good reasons to keep the system as it is, regardless of who wins. But the discussion is always driven by losers.

> There's are good reasons to keep the system as it is, I've read some of the reasons, but none sound good to me. What do you like about the electoral college?

the electoral college was a compromise made a long time ago that has two facets: the indirect nature of voting for representatives who vote for us (that was necessitated by preindustrial communication and transportation systems) and some extra weight given to smaller states to get them to agree to come into the union. That was the deal, no takesy-backsies.

It is not going to change because those states that are disadvantaged by the change will not agree to it, so we are discussing it here for fun, not for profit. And if you think the advantage those states have is so overwhelmingly good, you are free to move to one of them, they are not exclusive clubs or oligarchies, they are open democracies themselves.

A major side benefit we get from the electoral college is, our elections get fought out in a small number of places which is an economically efficient way to do it. It is not the case that we are ignoring the voters of the other places, we are simply precounting them into their respective columns. If those places swung to more left-right balance, they could add themselves to the list of places fought over, and I guarantee that would make none of those people happy because elections, like making sausage, is ugly business.

Remember, if enough people move from California to Rhode Island, it is Rhode Island that will be complaining that California is getting a free ride in the electoral college...

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#66

Post by big-green-man »

analog31 wrote: post #16
big-green-man wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would require a modification to the constitution, Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3 prohibits the states from entering into any compact with one another without the consent of congress. Congress could consent to it, which would bypass the amendment requirements, but I doubt they would as it takes federal power away.

The main problem is that it takes power away from one party.

Yes, and as of today that party would be the one youre (probably) not thinking of.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#67

Post by vsNicholas »

Empact wrote: post #34

There are a few concerns about the electoral college, but I don’t consider it broken in any meaningful sense. After all, the Constitution has survived over 200 years with it in place, which makes it the longest-serving constitution in force today. We cannot say for sure that it would have survived so long under any proposed alternative. The first issue I would aim to address is the variance in voting power from distr…

From what I understand, the Permanent Apportionment Act can be adjusted or removed as result of a law being passed which would make it a really promising option. Access to representatives and durability against corruption also feel like they could be really compelling issues to voters.

The strongest response I have received to this suggestion is something like a fear about having more paid politicians. I don't see an increase in the number of legislators as the same as an increase in executive branch bureaucrats. I think part of the issue that does come to mind is how we fit twice as many reps in the capitol. I like the idea of having to adjust the size and arrangement of our legislative chamber. I also like the idea of addressing housing challenges; maybe its time to bring back the legislator bunkhouses. It becomes the reason to review and revise the existing standards for offices, housing, and even the culture of the house or representatives.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#68

Post by flopriore »

xnx wrote: post #59
flopriore wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As stated in other comments, it would be actually easy to implement as it doesn't require a change in the constitution. Anyway, as I told in another comment, I'm not from the US, so my intention wasn't really to say how to implement the proposal. I just had this idea and wrote it down in a blog post.

> it would be actually easy to implement If it is easy, why hasn't it been done. Do you think that no one considered this approach?

Ok yes maybe "easy" isn't exactly the correct term, but the way to appoint electors in each state doesn't need a 2/3 majority in every house + 3/4 of the states as it happens with Constitutional amendaments. So it's definitely an easier approach

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#69

Post by exabrial »

fsckboy wrote: post #65
xnx wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's are good reasons to keep the system as it is, I've read some of the reasons, but none sound good to me. What do you like about the electoral college?

the electoral college was a compromise made a long time ago that has two facets: the indirect nature of voting for representatives who vote for us (that was necessitated by preindustrial communication and transportation systems) and some extra weight given to smaller states to get them to agree to come into the union. That was the deal, no takesy-backsies. It is not going to change because those states that are disad…

Wow I was pro-electoral college before reading your comment, but now I'm cemented in my view.

What you're essentially saying is that the electoral college favors areas with more open minds willing to vote either direction, rather than hard core voting by party, and that is probably the greatest reason to keep it. Political parties _sometimes_ have the people or country's best interest in mind, but ultimately they are seeking power.

Re: How to Fix the Electoral College

#70

Post by Empact »

moomin wrote: post #44

James Madison wrote: There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections. They have been t…

The context: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-006...
Post reply on HN