5 ms·

You should really research the electoral college instead of just assuming it's unfair. There is a reason for it. You may disagree, but it's not just an obviou

You should really research the electoral college instead of just assuming it's unfair. There is a reason for it. You may disagree, but it's not just an obvious flaw or oversight. It was intentional. Edit: to the downvoters, your downvotes won't magically and retroactively count as votes in the 2016 election. Why not participate in the discussion instead of the incivility? Or, you know, hypocritically participate in the HN equivalent of the Electoral College, those with downvoting ability.

MereInterest 8y ago
I'd be interested to hear what you say what the original reason is, as I've heard several. Not one of them is at all useful in the modern day. 1) To appease slave-owning states, by allowing slaves to be counted toward the allocation of representatives and electoral votes. No longer relevant after Civil War. 2) To prevent demagogues from gaining popular support. Assumes that electors will meet and decide on a candidate when the electoral college votes, rather than being bound ahead of time. Clearly, did not do this job in 2016. 3) To keep small states from being overwhelmed by large states. Assumes that loyalty and identity are primarily to a state (e.g Virginian) rather than to the country (American). Furthermore, causes undo emphasis on swing states, which are primarily based on how much urban/rural area falls within the state borders. I have not heard any reasons to dissuade me from the belief that the electoral college is a vestigial organization that no longer serves any purpose. Edit: Also, your entire comment is a form of personal attack that does not give any argument. At most, you imply that an argument for the existence of the electoral college exists, but give no support for its existence. If you are going to say that a reason exists, at least give a one sentence description, or a link to what you believe that reason to be. As it is, you are disingenuously setting yourself up to say, in effect, "Well, none of those reasons are the one that I was thinking of. I'm keeping the real reason for myself, but feel free to continue guessing while I act like I have the superior position."
- owl_paste 8y ago
  It's 3) To keep small states from being overwhelmed by large states. Assumes that loyalty and identity are primarily to a state (e.g Virginian) rather than to the country (American). Furthermore, causes undo emphasis on swing states, which are primarily based on how much urban/rural area falls within the state borders. It's similar to the idea that each that each state gets the same number of senators. There's a balance between state governance and federal governance, such that you can live in a state more attuned to your preferences. Regardless of your political ideals, this plays out in your favor (I guarantee it, unless you're oddly attracted to the simultaneously bland and chaotic politics of the federal). As for the claim of undue emphasis on swing states, I'd say then it's working as expected by even allowing swing states to have a chance against California. So I guess we come to our fundamental disagreement: should the majority always be able to railroad all dissenters? The Founding Fathers thought about the same question and figured, no, the majority is not always to be trusted. To give just a bit more context still, I'm vehemently opposed to Trump for a number of reasons, but by no means see the Democratic party as putting up many good candidates. I just can't stand by their platform on many things. But my point is that while I would have liked, say, Rubio as president, the majority of Republicans selected Trump. The majority did something I really disliked. The Electoral College is there to have some kind of counterbalance to oppressive majority. Whether it's truly effective is a matter for another, more detailed debate. All I asked in my original comment is that people not dismiss it as ill-thought-out, unfair or archaic without giving it some thought. Edit in response to your edit: obviously I'm not disingenuously writing some alternative argument. I wrote this before your edit.
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    Do you think the framers of the Constitution intended the House to have one representative for every 750,000 people? You didn't simply ask people to give it some thought. You implied the person you were addressing hadn't. Then you reacted to the resulting downvotes by calling them uncivil and hypocritical and snarking about the 2016 election. You went on to imply that your opponent wants "to railroad all dissenters", which is hardly a charitable interpretation.

MereInterest 8y ago

I'd be interested to hear what you say what the original reason is, as I've heard several. Not one of them is at all useful in the modern day. 1) To appease slave-owning states, by allowing slaves to be counted toward the allocation of representatives and electoral votes. No longer relevant after Civil War. 2) To prevent demagogues from gaining popular support. Assumes that electors will meet and decide on a candidate when the electoral college votes, rather than being bound ahead of time. Clearly, did not do this job in 2016. 3) To keep small states from being overwhelmed by large states. Assumes that loyalty and identity are primarily to a state (e.g Virginian) rather than to the country (American). Furthermore, causes undo emphasis on swing states, which are primarily based on how much urban/rural area falls within the state borders. I have not heard any reasons to dissuade me from the belief that the electoral college is a vestigial organization that no longer serves any purpose. Edit: Also, your entire comment is a form of personal attack that does not give any argument. At most, you imply that an argument for the existence of the electoral college exists, but give no support for its existence. If you are going to say that a reason exists, at least give a one sentence description, or a link to what you believe that reason to be. As it is, you are disingenuously setting yourself up to say, in effect, "Well, none of those reasons are the one that I was thinking of. I'm keeping the real reason for myself, but feel free to continue guessing while I act like I have the superior position."

owl_paste 8y ago
It's 3) To keep small states from being overwhelmed by large states. Assumes that loyalty and identity are primarily to a state (e.g Virginian) rather than to the country (American). Furthermore, causes undo emphasis on swing states, which are primarily based on how much urban/rural area falls within the state borders. It's similar to the idea that each that each state gets the same number of senators. There's a balance between state governance and federal governance, such that you can live in a state more attuned to your preferences. Regardless of your political ideals, this plays out in your favor (I guarantee it, unless you're oddly attracted to the simultaneously bland and chaotic politics of the federal). As for the claim of undue emphasis on swing states, I'd say then it's working as expected by even allowing swing states to have a chance against California. So I guess we come to our fundamental disagreement: should the majority always be able to railroad all dissenters? The Founding Fathers thought about the same question and figured, no, the majority is not always to be trusted. To give just a bit more context still, I'm vehemently opposed to Trump for a number of reasons, but by no means see the Democratic party as putting up many good candidates. I just can't stand by their platform on many things. But my point is that while I would have liked, say, Rubio as president, the majority of Republicans selected Trump. The majority did something I really disliked. The Electoral College is there to have some kind of counterbalance to oppressive majority. Whether it's truly effective is a matter for another, more detailed debate. All I asked in my original comment is that people not dismiss it as ill-thought-out, unfair or archaic without giving it some thought. Edit in response to your edit: obviously I'm not disingenuously writing some alternative argument. I wrote this before your edit.
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  Do you think the framers of the Constitution intended the House to have one representative for every 750,000 people? You didn't simply ask people to give it some thought. You implied the person you were addressing hadn't. Then you reacted to the resulting downvotes by calling them uncivil and hypocritical and snarking about the 2016 election. You went on to imply that your opponent wants "to railroad all dissenters", which is hardly a charitable interpretation.