7 ms·

"This election was extraordinarily close. Within half a point." No it wasn't and you're extraordinarily ill-informed about the US's political system to even ma

"This election was extraordinarily close. Within half a point." No it wasn't and you're extraordinarily ill-informed about the US's political system to even make that claim. The US is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. The Electoral College is part of a carefully drawn up system by the Founding Fathers to prevent power from concentrating. For those who didn't learn and understand this at age 10 or so, check out Steve Farrell's series here: https://ldsmag.com/article-1-4510/ https://ldsmag.com/article-1-4510/

pikzen 10y ago
In every thread about US elections, there is going to be the same "muh founding fathers, carefully crafted system, so perfect". The truth is, the US system is pretty damn awful. The good news is, everything else is also pretty damn awful. Also "This is a prescription for socialism and communism." makes me think that maybe the author of the article is a tiny bit biased. Also completely wrong.
- parthdesai 10y ago
  It's damn near impossible in US for a person or group of people to start a new party and contest election and have a chance at winning it. Compare that to India where current Chief Minister of Delhi is from a party that started to break monopoly of two big parties in India and actually won. It's a total different thing that he turned out to be just another politician.
pducks32 10y ago
All with you there but carefully drawn up is a bit of a stretch.
maxerickson 10y ago
A few hundred thousand votes would be enough to swing the electoral college the other way. The election was even closer than 1/2 a point of the popular vote. And while the popular vote does not decide the presidential election, it is not irrelevant if you are trying to measure the sentiment of the people (a strong electoral college win with a narrow popular margin says something different than a strong electoral college win with a huge popular margin).
austinheap 10y ago
Yes, we're a constitutional republic and have an elector college largely because of the slave states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Pro_slavery_influences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Pro_slavery_...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
PetrolMan 10y ago
The election was close. Several states had margins of victory of right around 1%. I didn't look too closely but less than 500,000 votes is enough to flip the winner in a couple of states and swing the whole election. Considering you've got ~ 120 million votes that seems pretty close to me. Edit: Looks like 147,029 votes is enough to flip Wisconsin and Florida and give Clinton the Electoral College.
bargl 10y ago
The electoral college is a bastardized form of it's original intent which has been around for a very long time. In the original intent of the Representative Republic designed by the founders, your state would pick it's Electoral College and then they would pick any president. You didn't actually vote for one candidate. The issue I have with people who argue the EC needs to stay is that they don't realize we're no longer in a representative republic because we took the power from the EC to pick a candidate. Otherwise the EC could effectively pick Jill Stein if they felt like it, even though trump won the EC state count. But we don't let them do that any more.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  We're in a representative republic because elected representatives decide policy (either directly or by appointing other people who do so) -- that's the representative part -- and because we don't have a monarchy -- that's the Republic part. The formulas for allocating representatives and the exact details of the process by which some of them are chosen has changed over time, but its still a representative republic.
  - bargl 10y ago
    I was speaking strictly to the form the Electoral College supports our representative republic in that we don't directly vote for President, we vote for representatives who vote for our president. The way that I consider it to be a bastardization of the Representative Republic is that we don't care who the representatives in the Electoral College are we only care who they vote for. If we elected the EC as people who were allowed to make a choice then it would be more of a representative republic. Instead we have a democracy in that we are really just voting for president, but some people's vote count more than others. >> and because we don't have a monarchy -- that's the Republic part. That is wrong. There is such thing as a representative democracy. That is where the majority always wins. AKA Popular Vote.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I was speaking strictly to the form the Electoral College supports our representative republic in that we don't directly vote for President, we vote for representatives who vote for our president. The President is an elected head of state and government, a characteristic of a representative republic, whether he is directly or indirectly elected. > There is such thing as a representative democracy Yes, representative republics are a subset of representative democracies (Constitutional monarchies are usually also representative democracies, though not republics, because monarchy.) > That is where the majority always wins. No, democracy doesn't mean "the majority always wins", and the distinction you are trying to make between representative republics and representative democracies is not what those terms actually mean.
bunderbunder 10y ago
Originally, it was more meant to concentrate power. The Electoral College was the Founding Fathers' solution to the "problem" that slave states would have been at a huge disadvantage in a popular vote, by virtue of a much smaller percentage of their populations being allowed to vote in the first place. "One person, one vote" didn't work for them. So instead, they came up with a system where a few people got to effectively vote as if they spoke for everyone else in their state, including the swaths of the population who were disenfranchised. The way in which it functions has indeed changed a bit in the wake of a few constitutional amendments. But make no mistake: It was intended to work the way it worked 200-odd years ago, not the way it works now. The popular explanation, which tries to justify how it works now and projects that justification onto its original designers, is a retcon.
- Amezarak 10y ago
  Fortunately, we live in a time where any of us can look over the notes people made at the Constitutional Convention itself. Some of the various ideas and justifications follow: Mr. SHERMAN was for the appointment by the Legislature, and for making him absolutely dependent on that body, as it was the will of that which was to be executed. An independence of the Executive on the supreme Legislature, was in his opinion the very essence of tyranny if there was any such thing. Mr. WILSON renewed his declarations in favor of an appointment by the people. He wished to derive not only both branches of the Legislature from the people, without the intervention of the State Legislatures but the Executive also; in order to make them as independent as possible of each other, as well as of the States; Mr. WILSON made the following motion, to be substituted for the mode proposed by Mr. Randolph's resolution, "that the Executive Magistracy shall be elected in the following manner: That the States be divided into ______ districts: & that the persons qualified to vote in each district for members of the first branch of the national Legislature elect ______ members for their respective districts to be electors of the Executive magistracy, that the said Electors of the Executive magistracy meet at ______ and they or any ______ of them so met shall proceed to elect by ballot, but not out of their own body ______ person in whom the Executive authority of the national Government shall be vested." Mr. WILSON repeated his arguments in favor of an election without the intervention of the States. He supposed too that this mode would produce more confidence among the people in the first magistrate, than an election by the national Legislature. Mr. GERRY, opposed the election by the national legislature. There would be a constant intrigue kept up for the appointment. The Legislature & the candidates wd. bargain & play into one another's hands, votes would be given by the former under promises or expectations from the latter, of recompensing them by services to members of the Legislature or to [4] their friends. He liked the principle of Mr. Wilson's motion, but fears it would alarm & give a handle to the State partisans, as tending to supersede altogether the State authorities. He thought the Community not yet ripe for stripping the States of their powers, even such as might not be requisite for local purposes. He was for waiting till people should feel more the necessity of it. He seemed to prefer the taking the suffrages of the States instead of Electors, or letting the Legislatures nominate, and the electors appoint. He was not clear that the people ought to act directly even in the choice of electors, being too little informed of personal characters in large districts, and liable to deceptions. Mr. WILLIAMSON could see no advantage in the introduction of Electors chosen by the people who would stand in the same relation to them as the State Legislatures, whilst the expedient would be attended with great trouble and expence Mr. GERRY, according to previous notice given by him, moved "that the National Executive should be elected by the Executives of the States whose proportion of votes should be the same with that allowed to the States in the election of the Senate." If the appointmt. should be made by the Natl. Legislature, it would lessen that independence of the Executive which ought to prevail, would give birth to intrigue and corruption between the Executive & Legislature previous to the election, and to partiality in the Executive afterwards to the friends who promoted him. Some other mode therefore appeared to him necessary. I cannot find any debate over suffrage until after these discussions. The antidemocratic sentiment is the Convention was very strong - there was debate on whether even the House should be popularly elected, on the grounds that: Mr. SHERMAN opposed the election by the people, insisting that it ought to be by the State Legislatures. The people he said, immediately should have as little to do as may be about the Government. They want information and are constantly liable to be misled. Mr. GERRY. The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Massts. it had been fully confirmed by experience that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute. One principal evil arises from the want of due provision for those employed in the administration of Governmt. It would seem to be a maxim of democracy to starve the public servants. He mentioned the popular clamour in Massts. for the reduction of salaries and the attack made on that of the Govr. though secured by the spirit of the Constitution itself. He had he said been too republican heretofore: he was still however republican, but had been taught by experience the danger of the levilling spirit. http://www.nhccs.org/Mnotes.html http://www.nhccs.org/Mnotes.html
dang 10y ago
> No it wasn't and you're extraordinarily ill-informed > For those who didn't learn and understand this at age 10 or so If you're going to provide corrections, please do so neutrally and without snark. Otherwise you degrade the discourse just like the non-factual comments do.
- camperman 10y ago
  It's called rhetoric and I don't really care about degrading the discourse.
  - dang 10y ago
    That's a problem if you want to keep commenting here! Comments on HN need to be civil and substantive.

pikzen 10y ago

In every thread about US elections, there is going to be the same "muh founding fathers, carefully crafted system, so perfect". The truth is, the US system is pretty damn awful. The good news is, everything else is also pretty damn awful. Also "This is a prescription for socialism and communism." makes me think that maybe the author of the article is a tiny bit biased. Also completely wrong.

parthdesai 10y ago
It's damn near impossible in US for a person or group of people to start a new party and contest election and have a chance at winning it. Compare that to India where current Chief Minister of Delhi is from a party that started to break monopoly of two big parties in India and actually won. It's a total different thing that he turned out to be just another politician.

pducks32 10y ago

All with you there but carefully drawn up is a bit of a stretch.

maxerickson 10y ago

A few hundred thousand votes would be enough to swing the electoral college the other way. The election was even closer than 1/2 a point of the popular vote. And while the popular vote does not decide the presidential election, it is not irrelevant if you are trying to measure the sentiment of the people (a strong electoral college win with a narrow popular margin says something different than a strong electoral college win with a huge popular margin).

austinheap 10y ago

Yes, we're a constitutional republic and have an elector college largely because of the slave states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Pro_slavery_influences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68#Pro_slavery_...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

PetrolMan 10y ago

The election was close. Several states had margins of victory of right around 1%. I didn't look too closely but less than 500,000 votes is enough to flip the winner in a couple of states and swing the whole election. Considering you've got ~ 120 million votes that seems pretty close to me. Edit: Looks like 147,029 votes is enough to flip Wisconsin and Florida and give Clinton the Electoral College.

bargl 10y ago

The electoral college is a bastardized form of it's original intent which has been around for a very long time. In the original intent of the Representative Republic designed by the founders, your state would pick it's Electoral College and then they would pick any president. You didn't actually vote for one candidate. The issue I have with people who argue the EC needs to stay is that they don't realize we're no longer in a representative republic because we took the power from the EC to pick a candidate. Otherwise the EC could effectively pick Jill Stein if they felt like it, even though trump won the EC state count. But we don't let them do that any more.

dragonwriter 10y ago
We're in a representative republic because elected representatives decide policy (either directly or by appointing other people who do so) -- that's the representative part -- and because we don't have a monarchy -- that's the Republic part. The formulas for allocating representatives and the exact details of the process by which some of them are chosen has changed over time, but its still a representative republic.
- bargl 10y ago
  I was speaking strictly to the form the Electoral College supports our representative republic in that we don't directly vote for President, we vote for representatives who vote for our president. The way that I consider it to be a bastardization of the Representative Republic is that we don't care who the representatives in the Electoral College are we only care who they vote for. If we elected the EC as people who were allowed to make a choice then it would be more of a representative republic. Instead we have a democracy in that we are really just voting for president, but some people's vote count more than others. >> and because we don't have a monarchy -- that's the Republic part. That is wrong. There is such thing as a representative democracy. That is where the majority always wins. AKA Popular Vote.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I was speaking strictly to the form the Electoral College supports our representative republic in that we don't directly vote for President, we vote for representatives who vote for our president. The President is an elected head of state and government, a characteristic of a representative republic, whether he is directly or indirectly elected. > There is such thing as a representative democracy Yes, representative republics are a subset of representative democracies (Constitutional monarchies are usually also representative democracies, though not republics, because monarchy.) > That is where the majority always wins. No, democracy doesn't mean "the majority always wins", and the distinction you are trying to make between representative republics and representative democracies is not what those terms actually mean.

bunderbunder 10y ago

Originally, it was more meant to concentrate power. The Electoral College was the Founding Fathers' solution to the "problem" that slave states would have been at a huge disadvantage in a popular vote, by virtue of a much smaller percentage of their populations being allowed to vote in the first place. "One person, one vote" didn't work for them. So instead, they came up with a system where a few people got to effectively vote as if they spoke for everyone else in their state, including the swaths of the population who were disenfranchised. The way in which it functions has indeed changed a bit in the wake of a few constitutional amendments. But make no mistake: It was intended to work the way it worked 200-odd years ago, not the way it works now. The popular explanation, which tries to justify how it works now and projects that justification onto its original designers, is a retcon.

Amezarak 10y ago
Fortunately, we live in a time where any of us can look over the notes people made at the Constitutional Convention itself. Some of the various ideas and justifications follow: Mr. SHERMAN was for the appointment by the Legislature, and for making him absolutely dependent on that body, as it was the will of that which was to be executed. An independence of the Executive on the supreme Legislature, was in his opinion the very essence of tyranny if there was any such thing. Mr. WILSON renewed his declarations in favor of an appointment by the people. He wished to derive not only both branches of the Legislature from the people, without the intervention of the State Legislatures but the Executive also; in order to make them as independent as possible of each other, as well as of the States; Mr. WILSON made the following motion, to be substituted for the mode proposed by Mr. Randolph's resolution, "that the Executive Magistracy shall be elected in the following manner: That the States be divided into ______ districts: & that the persons qualified to vote in each district for members of the first branch of the national Legislature elect ______ members for their respective districts to be electors of the Executive magistracy, that the said Electors of the Executive magistracy meet at ______ and they or any ______ of them so met shall proceed to elect by ballot, but not out of their own body ______ person in whom the Executive authority of the national Government shall be vested." Mr. WILSON repeated his arguments in favor of an election without the intervention of the States. He supposed too that this mode would produce more confidence among the people in the first magistrate, than an election by the national Legislature. Mr. GERRY, opposed the election by the national legislature. There would be a constant intrigue kept up for the appointment. The Legislature & the candidates wd. bargain & play into one another's hands, votes would be given by the former under promises or expectations from the latter, of recompensing them by services to members of the Legislature or to [4] their friends. He liked the principle of Mr. Wilson's motion, but fears it would alarm & give a handle to the State partisans, as tending to supersede altogether the State authorities. He thought the Community not yet ripe for stripping the States of their powers, even such as might not be requisite for local purposes. He was for waiting till people should feel more the necessity of it. He seemed to prefer the taking the suffrages of the States instead of Electors, or letting the Legislatures nominate, and the electors appoint. He was not clear that the people ought to act directly even in the choice of electors, being too little informed of personal characters in large districts, and liable to deceptions. Mr. WILLIAMSON could see no advantage in the introduction of Electors chosen by the people who would stand in the same relation to them as the State Legislatures, whilst the expedient would be attended with great trouble and expence Mr. GERRY, according to previous notice given by him, moved "that the National Executive should be elected by the Executives of the States whose proportion of votes should be the same with that allowed to the States in the election of the Senate." If the appointmt. should be made by the Natl. Legislature, it would lessen that independence of the Executive which ought to prevail, would give birth to intrigue and corruption between the Executive & Legislature previous to the election, and to partiality in the Executive afterwards to the friends who promoted him. Some other mode therefore appeared to him necessary. I cannot find any debate over suffrage until after these discussions. The antidemocratic sentiment is the Convention was very strong - there was debate on whether even the House should be popularly elected, on the grounds that: Mr. SHERMAN opposed the election by the people, insisting that it ought to be by the State Legislatures. The people he said, immediately should have as little to do as may be about the Government. They want information and are constantly liable to be misled. Mr. GERRY. The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Massts. it had been fully confirmed by experience that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute. One principal evil arises from the want of due provision for those employed in the administration of Governmt. It would seem to be a maxim of democracy to starve the public servants. He mentioned the popular clamour in Massts. for the reduction of salaries and the attack made on that of the Govr. though secured by the spirit of the Constitution itself. He had he said been too republican heretofore: he was still however republican, but had been taught by experience the danger of the levilling spirit. http://www.nhccs.org/Mnotes.html http://www.nhccs.org/Mnotes.html

dang 10y ago

> No it wasn't and you're extraordinarily ill-informed > For those who didn't learn and understand this at age 10 or so If you're going to provide corrections, please do so neutrally and without snark. Otherwise you degrade the discourse just like the non-factual comments do.

camperman 10y ago
It's called rhetoric and I don't really care about degrading the discourse.
- dang 10y ago
  That's a problem if you want to keep commenting here! Comments on HN need to be civil and substantive.