4 ms·
The Electoral College was created for two reasons as a compromise so that all of the states would sign the Constitution: 1. To balance power between states tha
by mch82 10y ago
The Electoral College was created for two reasons as a compromise so that all of the states would sign the Constitution:
1. To balance power between states that have slaves and states that do not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
2. To provide a way for people with better information than the general public to choose the President [0].
Addressing #1, we thankfully no longer have slaves, but the need to address population disparity still exists. In 1929 the Republican majority in congress put a cap of 435 on the number of members of the House of Representatives [1]. That has led to a ratio of 1:700,000 representation, compared to the intended 1:50,000 ratio (and the 1:30,000 ratio advocated by George Washington). This alters the effectiveness of both the Electoral College and the House by reducing effective representation as larger coalitions need to form in order to influence the vote of a single representative. In 2012, CNN indicated the UK has a 1:90,000 ratio and the government we established in Iraq 1:100,000 [2].
The procedures of the Electoral College have changed since its creation, undermining the ability of the EC to perform #2 [0]. Electors are now often uninformed and simply act a pledged voters.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_Stat... "Electoral College (United States)"
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_ap... "United States Congressional Apportionment"
[2]: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/opinion/flynn-expand-congress/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/opinion/flynn-expand-congress/ "CNN: What's wrong with Congress? It's not big enough."
- cyphax 10y ago> 2. To provide a way for people with better information than the general public to choose the President [0]. Heheh, so the people chose Clinton, but the "people with better information" chose Trump? That just doesn't sound right. ;)
- rounce 10y agoWut? Did you even read the parent post?
- grzm 10y agoPlease don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Add some useful information, or move on (possibly down voting if you can and are so inclined).
- rounce 10y agoI actually wrote a whole long post lamenting the users failure to read the post they were replying to. However, it seemed ridiculous, given that they couldn't even correctly contextualise the part of the post they were quoting. So I put in terms that couldn't easily be misconstrued. Then let them either see their error, or point it in a subsequent post if they really struggle. Also, I didn't ask if they had read the article, I asked if they had read the very post they were quoting (to quote kinda implies that you read and understood). The article posted by the OP is irrelevant by this stage in this micro-discussion. If you had read the parent comments, you obviously wouldn't be playing HN rent-a-cop for nothing. Likewise you'll also realize that the guideline simply refers to OP articles, and doesn't try and tell people how to conduct a reasonable conversation when one of the participants just decides to put words in the mouth of another. Bloody busybody.