4 ms·

You trace it back though; we voted for the people who did the gerrymandering, and we voted for the electoral college (our ancestors did, anyway).

koolba 8y ago
I say it's a feature, not a bug. Reducing everything to a popular vote is just a feel good way of describing mob rule. The electoral college and equal Senate representation acts as a tempering force on said mob.
- smt88 8y ago
  Aren't limited powers of the Presidency also a tempering force? So are checks and balances. Yes, direct representation encourages mob voting, but there are hundreds of distinct mobs that can check one another.
- oblio 8y ago
  In most places you prevent tyranny of the majority through the constitution. Then in the bounds of the constitution, yes, the majority does get to decide. That's not the same as mob rule.
- leesalminen 8y ago
  Agreed completely. Folks should be careful what they wish for...
- NickM 8y ago
  The electoral college and equal Senate representation acts as a tempering force on said mob. So rather than tyranny of the majority, now we have tyranny of an arbitrary minority. I fail to see how that improves things. As others have pointed out, the constitution and the court system are the features that are supposed to counteract tyranny of the majority, not the EC or the Senate. The EC and the Senate aren't there because they make the system better or more democratic, they're there because they were part of the necessary compromises that were made hundreds of years ago to convince all the independent states to band together into the United States.
  - CivBase 8y ago
    > So rather than tyranny of the majority, now we have tyranny of an arbitrary minority. I fail to see how that improves things. There's nothing arbitrary about it. The United States is a federated government and the electoral college is a system designed to ensure smaller state governments maintain some influence. We have granted more and more power to the federal government over the years. You could argue that's a good thing. We are forcing the states to "catch up" their policies with the rest of the nation. You could also argue it's a bad thing. Each state is distinct by its culture, geography, demographics, etc. Therefore it makes sense that each state would need its own government and policies to handle its unique situations. Heavy-handed policies on the federal level could ruin the systems created by those governments. You can argue the point either way but it's not fair to consider the electoral college as an "arbitrary" system. And it was no more of a bargaining chip than the Bill of Rights. It is a deliberate mechanic designed for a government that has changed significantly over more than two centuries.
    - BoiledCabbage 8y ago
      > smaller state governments maintain some influence. Which is another way of saying, having some people's voices worth 3 or 4 times more than others. And the sparser the region you live in, the higher the multiplicative effect. Rocks, trees, grass don't get a say in govt, people do. And all people should be weighted equally. Unfortunately, our current system does the opposite of that.
- orthecreedence 8y ago
  A few years ago I might have agreed with you. The fact that the electoral college allowed a person with absolutely no political experience who's primary accomplishments were several failed businesses and some TV spotlights to be president of the United States is an absolute fucking glowing failure. Donald Trump IS the person the electoral college was put in place to stop. They did not do their job. The electoral college needs to be abolished, and while we're at it, we really need some form of ranked-choice voting for president. FPTP is a pathetic voting system, and while you can argue about which alternative is the best one until you're blue in the face, I have never seen an argument that favors FPTP when the main metric is fair representation.
  - webXL 8y ago
    > Donald Trump IS the person the electoral college was put in place to stop. Wrong. It was put in place to stop someone who was only popular in urban areas. You need to carry a majority of states in order to represent the states. There are plenty of other checks to "stop" (curb) the power of the office. The voters can have a big say whether or not those should be invoked this November.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      "You need to carry a majority of states in order to represent the states" The states have never had an equal number of electors, so I believe your claim is false.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    I think any opinion predicated on the purpose of the electoral college at this point is invalid. That's because it was originally intended to allow the states to choose independent electors, but since they are now bound by the statewide popular vote, any effect of that is unrelated to the original purpose. The fact that sometimes they elect the candidate who did not win the national popular vote is simply a bug in the evolved system, and all defenses of it are post-hoc rationalization motivated by the assumption it will continue to favor Republicans.

koolba 8y ago

I say it's a feature, not a bug. Reducing everything to a popular vote is just a feel good way of describing mob rule. The electoral college and equal Senate representation acts as a tempering force on said mob.

smt88 8y ago
Aren't limited powers of the Presidency also a tempering force? So are checks and balances. Yes, direct representation encourages mob voting, but there are hundreds of distinct mobs that can check one another.
oblio 8y ago
In most places you prevent tyranny of the majority through the constitution. Then in the bounds of the constitution, yes, the majority does get to decide. That's not the same as mob rule.
leesalminen 8y ago
Agreed completely. Folks should be careful what they wish for...
NickM 8y ago
The electoral college and equal Senate representation acts as a tempering force on said mob. So rather than tyranny of the majority, now we have tyranny of an arbitrary minority. I fail to see how that improves things. As others have pointed out, the constitution and the court system are the features that are supposed to counteract tyranny of the majority, not the EC or the Senate. The EC and the Senate aren't there because they make the system better or more democratic, they're there because they were part of the necessary compromises that were made hundreds of years ago to convince all the independent states to band together into the United States.
- CivBase 8y ago
  > So rather than tyranny of the majority, now we have tyranny of an arbitrary minority. I fail to see how that improves things. There's nothing arbitrary about it. The United States is a federated government and the electoral college is a system designed to ensure smaller state governments maintain some influence. We have granted more and more power to the federal government over the years. You could argue that's a good thing. We are forcing the states to "catch up" their policies with the rest of the nation. You could also argue it's a bad thing. Each state is distinct by its culture, geography, demographics, etc. Therefore it makes sense that each state would need its own government and policies to handle its unique situations. Heavy-handed policies on the federal level could ruin the systems created by those governments. You can argue the point either way but it's not fair to consider the electoral college as an "arbitrary" system. And it was no more of a bargaining chip than the Bill of Rights. It is a deliberate mechanic designed for a government that has changed significantly over more than two centuries.
  - BoiledCabbage 8y ago
    > smaller state governments maintain some influence. Which is another way of saying, having some people's voices worth 3 or 4 times more than others. And the sparser the region you live in, the higher the multiplicative effect. Rocks, trees, grass don't get a say in govt, people do. And all people should be weighted equally. Unfortunately, our current system does the opposite of that.
orthecreedence 8y ago
A few years ago I might have agreed with you. The fact that the electoral college allowed a person with absolutely no political experience who's primary accomplishments were several failed businesses and some TV spotlights to be president of the United States is an absolute fucking glowing failure. Donald Trump IS the person the electoral college was put in place to stop. They did not do their job. The electoral college needs to be abolished, and while we're at it, we really need some form of ranked-choice voting for president. FPTP is a pathetic voting system, and while you can argue about which alternative is the best one until you're blue in the face, I have never seen an argument that favors FPTP when the main metric is fair representation.
- webXL 8y ago
  > Donald Trump IS the person the electoral college was put in place to stop. Wrong. It was put in place to stop someone who was only popular in urban areas. You need to carry a majority of states in order to represent the states. There are plenty of other checks to "stop" (curb) the power of the office. The voters can have a big say whether or not those should be invoked this November.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    "You need to carry a majority of states in order to represent the states" The states have never had an equal number of electors, so I believe your claim is false.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  I think any opinion predicated on the purpose of the electoral college at this point is invalid. That's because it was originally intended to allow the states to choose independent electors, but since they are now bound by the statewide popular vote, any effect of that is unrelated to the original purpose. The fact that sometimes they elect the candidate who did not win the national popular vote is simply a bug in the evolved system, and all defenses of it are post-hoc rationalization motivated by the assumption it will continue to favor Republicans.