3 ms·

Thanks for bringing up, since it is a relevant point. However, it still does not change the fact that he is now leading the most powerful nation, with all its c

Thanks for bringing up, since it is a relevant point. However, it still does not change the fact that he is now leading the most powerful nation, with all its consequences. I have always wondered how hard it would be to switch to direct voting rather as opposed to the system with an electoral college. Is it impossible because the current system is codified in the constitution, or does it 'only' require an amendment. If so, was there ever a serious attempt to change this system?

watter 9y ago
You would have an NYC-LosAngeles government nearly every time. Clintons for life. The system was designed to avoid the concentration of power you desire.
- sgift 9y ago
  Why exactly would this be the case? As far as I can see most people don't live in this two cities? And saying the US system "was designed to avoid the concentration of power" sounds like a sad joke from an European perspective (First-past-post-system, extreme presidential powers etc.)
  - caseysoftware 9y ago
    Those "extreme presidential powers" were not in the system design. They were submitted as (sometimes secret) change requests by every president post WW2 and accelerated by presidents in the last ~20 years. Unfortunately, the code review team didn't remove the changes and tacked on their own during the process.
    - sgift 9y ago
      Worst code review team in history. But thanks for the explanation, that makes it a bit more clear.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      >They were submitted as (sometimes secret) change requests by every president post WW2 and accelerated by presidents in the last ~20 years. They started way sooner than that, the first major one was the Louisiana Purchase. Basically non-Washington presidents have been trying to expand their power.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Most people do live in a small number of counties (~146 in ~3000). The US system is essentially designed to distribute voting power over land, rather than per capita.
    - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
      It was designed to distribute votes to slave owners in order to appease the southern states. It was never about protecting small states or distributing over land. When the constitution was first signed if votes had been distributed by population the Southern states would have essentially never had a voice, which was a non-starter for them. Considering that these states were also the economic power houses of the US, not including them was also a non-starter. The electoral college coupled with the 3/5ths compromise was the eventual solution to this problem.
      - kfhoeihfy38h 9y ago
        So, if I read your own second paragraph correctly, the system was actually designed to equalize votes between states? Then the 'distribute votes to slave owners' is just an emotional reflex-bating?
ItendToDisagree 9y ago
Parliamentary representation and more than two parties would fix things up a treat.
- belorn 9y ago
  Most Parliamentary representation I know do still have seats allocation based on districts/political areas, and thus the biggest issue people have with electoral system would still be there. Even the EU with the EU parliament have degressive proportionality system where the larger the state the more citizens are represented per seat. In the end, the idea that low population area have more impact-per-voter comes from the need to keep people united and making sure that high population areas don't completely out vote the needs of the other areas. The obvious alternative is independence, so instead of one united states you would have several smaller countries based on common needs.
  - NickNameNick 9y ago
    I think 'proportional representation' might have been what they meant. I like NZ's MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) system, but there are others that work too. Anything that results in fewer, bigger districts electing multiple representatives should break the power of gerrymandering. And Proportional representation makes 3rd parties viable, which gives you more than a single forced political axis, and just might lift the level political discourse above the current 'My team, right or wrong'
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
dghf 9y ago
> I have always wondered how hard it would be to switch to direct voting rather as opposed to the system with an electoral college. Is it impossible because the current system is codified in the constitution, or does it 'only' require an amendment. If so, was there ever a serious attempt to change this system? The constitution simply says that each state gets to appoint its electors as it sees fit. Wit that in mind, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [0] commits states that adopt it to appointing their electors in line with the national popular vote: e.g., in the 2016 election, had it been in force, every state that had adopted it would have chosen electors for Hillary, regardless of how the vote in that state fell. So far, it has been adopted in principle by 10 states and the District of Columbia. However, it doesn't come into force until adopted by enough states to achieve an absolute majority in the electoral college; currently, it's 105 votes shy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
plandis 9y ago
> Is it impossible because the current system is codified in the constitution, or does it 'only' require an amendment. 1.) The constitution can be changed 2.) The thing the changes the constitution is an amendment. You're prescribing a lot of "this is how the US political system should work" without really (it seems) understanding it.

watter 9y ago

You would have an NYC-LosAngeles government nearly every time. Clintons for life. The system was designed to avoid the concentration of power you desire.

sgift 9y ago
Why exactly would this be the case? As far as I can see most people don't live in this two cities? And saying the US system "was designed to avoid the concentration of power" sounds like a sad joke from an European perspective (First-past-post-system, extreme presidential powers etc.)
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  Those "extreme presidential powers" were not in the system design. They were submitted as (sometimes secret) change requests by every president post WW2 and accelerated by presidents in the last ~20 years. Unfortunately, the code review team didn't remove the changes and tacked on their own during the process.
  - sgift 9y ago
    Worst code review team in history. But thanks for the explanation, that makes it a bit more clear.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    >They were submitted as (sometimes secret) change requests by every president post WW2 and accelerated by presidents in the last ~20 years. They started way sooner than that, the first major one was the Louisiana Purchase. Basically non-Washington presidents have been trying to expand their power.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Most people do live in a small number of counties (~146 in ~3000). The US system is essentially designed to distribute voting power over land, rather than per capita.
  - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
    It was designed to distribute votes to slave owners in order to appease the southern states. It was never about protecting small states or distributing over land. When the constitution was first signed if votes had been distributed by population the Southern states would have essentially never had a voice, which was a non-starter for them. Considering that these states were also the economic power houses of the US, not including them was also a non-starter. The electoral college coupled with the 3/5ths compromise was the eventual solution to this problem.
    - kfhoeihfy38h 9y ago
      So, if I read your own second paragraph correctly, the system was actually designed to equalize votes between states? Then the 'distribute votes to slave owners' is just an emotional reflex-bating?

ItendToDisagree 9y ago

Parliamentary representation and more than two parties would fix things up a treat.

belorn 9y ago
Most Parliamentary representation I know do still have seats allocation based on districts/political areas, and thus the biggest issue people have with electoral system would still be there. Even the EU with the EU parliament have degressive proportionality system where the larger the state the more citizens are represented per seat. In the end, the idea that low population area have more impact-per-voter comes from the need to keep people united and making sure that high population areas don't completely out vote the needs of the other areas. The obvious alternative is independence, so instead of one united states you would have several smaller countries based on common needs.
- NickNameNick 9y ago
  I think 'proportional representation' might have been what they meant. I like NZ's MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) system, but there are others that work too. Anything that results in fewer, bigger districts electing multiple representatives should break the power of gerrymandering. And Proportional representation makes 3rd parties viable, which gives you more than a single forced political axis, and just might lift the level political discourse above the current 'My team, right or wrong'
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

dghf 9y ago

> I have always wondered how hard it would be to switch to direct voting rather as opposed to the system with an electoral college. Is it impossible because the current system is codified in the constitution, or does it 'only' require an amendment. If so, was there ever a serious attempt to change this system? The constitution simply says that each state gets to appoint its electors as it sees fit. Wit that in mind, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [0] commits states that adopt it to appointing their electors in line with the national popular vote: e.g., in the 2016 election, had it been in force, every state that had adopted it would have chosen electors for Hillary, regardless of how the vote in that state fell. So far, it has been adopted in principle by 10 states and the District of Columbia. However, it doesn't come into force until adopted by enough states to achieve an absolute majority in the electoral college; currently, it's 105 votes shy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

plandis 9y ago

> Is it impossible because the current system is codified in the constitution, or does it 'only' require an amendment. 1.) The constitution can be changed 2.) The thing the changes the constitution is an amendment. You're prescribing a lot of "this is how the US political system should work" without really (it seems) understanding it.