6 ms·

>small states and small districts generally get an unjust magnitude of political power The electoral college exists for a reason: precisely to protect the inte

by r_smart 10y ago

>small states and small districts generally get an unjust magnitude of political power The electoral college exists for a reason: precisely to protect the interests of the minority of people who don't live in cities from the whims of those who do. I live in Maine and we recently passed a citizen referendum for a large minimum wage increase in the state. This is almost entirely because of the people in a few population centers. These places will be able to absorb that hike moderately well, but the rural parts of the state are going to get crushed by it, and they're already the poorest parts of the state. It should have been a city ordinance, but was not. >Trump did not win the populist victory. Hillary Clinton did. Both campaigns were strategized around the existence of the electoral college. Winning the popular vote is merely an artifact of the system in place, but holds no real meaning. There's little reason to assume that were the popular vote what actually decided the election that the result of the election would have been different, as the strategies employed by both campaigns would have been different.

rconti 10y ago
Yes, both campaigns were strategized around the existence of the electoral college, but that's tweaking at the margins. It doesn't explain a vote difference in the millions.
- r_smart 10y ago
  How do you know that? How many republicans in California don't bother voting?
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Trump had the same number of Republicans voting for him as did Mitt Romney, while Clinton had far less Democrats voting than Obama. This idea that there is impact from republicans not voting isn't true, and what happened actually exasperates the popular vote difference.
    - r_smart 10y ago
      >This idea that there is impact from republicans not voting isn't true Which is supported by what evidence? There are tons of people that don't vote in any given election. Everyone has their reasons, and I'm sure apathy is the leading one, but it's crazy to suggest some portion of them don't vote because they live in a state that won't flip anyway. If you a Republican in California or a Democrat in Kansas, you don't really expect your vote to count.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        Post election analysis. The Republicans came out and voted at the same levels as the last election, the Democrats did not. This is why the popular vote difference is exasperated, because the candidate with the most popular vote, by millions, had less of a turnout.
        r_smart 10y ago
        You seem to be missing my point. In any election, some large portion of the population doesn't vote at all. At least some of them are refraining because they know their state is a foregone conclusion.
        bduerst 10y ago
        And you're missing my point that your making broad generalizations about every election is pointless - that the difference between this election and other elections is what matters.
      - JadeNB 10y ago
        > it's crazy to suggest some portion of them don't vote because they live in a state that won't flip anyway. You mean that it's not crazy to suggest this, right?
        r_smart 10y ago
        Yeah, whoops! I ended up arguing against myself there :)
- int_19h 10y ago
  The main reason for the difference in millions isn't even electoral college per se, it's the fact that most (all but 2) states allocate all their electors to whoever gets more votes in that state. In essence, every state throws all its minority votes away. If you think of it in terms of vote suppression (which, frankly, it is), it's one of such epic proportions that it dwarfs everything else, including redistricting, voter ID laws etc. I mean, think about it. In California, 33% of residents voted for Trump this year - and those votes didn't count in any sensible way. In Texas, 43% of residents voted for Clinton this year - and those votes didn't count, either!
bduerst 10y ago
>protect the interests of the minority of people who don't live in cities from the whims of those who do This is a straw man that is commonly made by advocates of the EC. The top 50 cities in the U.S. only account for 15% of the total population, so it's a nonexistent problem.
- r_smart 10y ago
  Yeah, I actually mispoke. the EC is to balance the larger more powerful states against the interests of the smaller ones. It is a compromise that was necessary to fashion the union in the first place. The reason it's not obvious is because of the federal government growing far beyond what it was intended to be.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    > the EC is to balance the larger more powerful states against the interests of the smaller ones This is not the reason the EC exists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13038525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13038525

by r_smart 10y ago

rconti 10y ago

Yes, both campaigns were strategized around the existence of the electoral college, but that's tweaking at the margins. It doesn't explain a vote difference in the millions.

r_smart 10y ago
How do you know that? How many republicans in California don't bother voting?
- bduerst 10y ago
  Trump had the same number of Republicans voting for him as did Mitt Romney, while Clinton had far less Democrats voting than Obama. This idea that there is impact from republicans not voting isn't true, and what happened actually exasperates the popular vote difference.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    >This idea that there is impact from republicans not voting isn't true Which is supported by what evidence? There are tons of people that don't vote in any given election. Everyone has their reasons, and I'm sure apathy is the leading one, but it's crazy to suggest some portion of them don't vote because they live in a state that won't flip anyway. If you a Republican in California or a Democrat in Kansas, you don't really expect your vote to count.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Post election analysis. The Republicans came out and voted at the same levels as the last election, the Democrats did not. This is why the popular vote difference is exasperated, because the candidate with the most popular vote, by millions, had less of a turnout.
      - r_smart 10y ago
        You seem to be missing my point. In any election, some large portion of the population doesn't vote at all. At least some of them are refraining because they know their state is a foregone conclusion.
        bduerst 10y ago
        And you're missing my point that your making broad generalizations about every election is pointless - that the difference between this election and other elections is what matters.
    - JadeNB 10y ago
      > it's crazy to suggest some portion of them don't vote because they live in a state that won't flip anyway. You mean that it's not crazy to suggest this, right?
      - r_smart 10y ago
        Yeah, whoops! I ended up arguing against myself there :)
int_19h 10y ago
The main reason for the difference in millions isn't even electoral college per se, it's the fact that most (all but 2) states allocate all their electors to whoever gets more votes in that state. In essence, every state throws all its minority votes away. If you think of it in terms of vote suppression (which, frankly, it is), it's one of such epic proportions that it dwarfs everything else, including redistricting, voter ID laws etc. I mean, think about it. In California, 33% of residents voted for Trump this year - and those votes didn't count in any sensible way. In Texas, 43% of residents voted for Clinton this year - and those votes didn't count, either!

bduerst 10y ago

>protect the interests of the minority of people who don't live in cities from the whims of those who do This is a straw man that is commonly made by advocates of the EC. The top 50 cities in the U.S. only account for 15% of the total population, so it's a nonexistent problem.

r_smart 10y ago
Yeah, I actually mispoke. the EC is to balance the larger more powerful states against the interests of the smaller ones. It is a compromise that was necessary to fashion the union in the first place. The reason it's not obvious is because of the federal government growing far beyond what it was intended to be.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > the EC is to balance the larger more powerful states against the interests of the smaller ones This is not the reason the EC exists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13038525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13038525