6 ms·
Point number two has been preoccupying my brain the last few months. Our system of electing presidents tend to hinge on several swing states, and in those state
by SubiculumCode 8y ago
Point number two has been preoccupying my brain the last few months. Our system of electing presidents tend to hinge on several swing states, and in those states, a few key districts, and this means that our elections are vulnerable to foreign influence much more so than if, say, presidents were elected by popular vote.
Protecting elections may mean ending winner take all electoral college system.
- macintux 8y ago> Protecting elections may mean ending winner take all electoral college system. I think 2016 proved that the electoral college is not supplying the adult oversight that the founders intended.
- SubiculumCode 8y agoThat may or may not be, but in the end it is a different question than the one I raised. One might have an electoral college system without a state by state winner take all, which can lead to particular districts in particular states having outsized influence on the national election, and as such presents itself as a manageable target for foreign influence campaigns. This seems, to me, a national security risk that should be mitigated...and is much easier to mitigate than, for example, depending on efficient removal of foreign state-powered advertising campaigns.
- someone454 8y agoOr maybe it is, and the adults actually won.
- mistermann 8y agoThis seems inconsistent with this article anyways: https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.... Is there a more accurate interpretation describing how the founding fathers believed it served the purpose of "adult oversight"? What exactly does that mean by the way?
- macintux 8y agoThe very first reason listed.
- 15155 8y agoThe electoral college and winner-take-all are mutually exclusive ideas. Presently, the electoral college benefits rural voters (Wyoming and the like) by increasing vote value. Winner-take-all elections benefit urban voters by disenfranchising rural voters (every non-Democrat county in California).
- chowchowchow 8y agoThis is a poorly drawn equivalence as the winner take all system doesn’t imbalance vote value like the electoral college does. IE you’re just saying winner takes all disenfranchises people who don’t vote for the winner which is a tautology.
- sheepmullet 8y ago> doesn’t imbalance vote value like the electoral college does Of course it does - it imbalances them all the way to zero.
- chowchowchow 8y agoI don’t see how this is an insightful comment. You’ve just provided a different way of saying there’s a winner and a loser. Disenfranchisement !== losing, it’s being denied the ability to have your vote count the same as anyone else’s. Under the electoral college system, 50 voters for candidate A in Wyoming get more influence than 50 voters in California for the same candidate.
- sheepmullet 8y ago> You’ve just provided a different way of saying there’s a winner and a loser. No I haven’t. Let me explain a bit more below. > Disenfranchisement !== losing, it’s being denied the ability to have your vote count the same as anyone else’s. > for the same candidate. Exactly! It’s a vote for the same presidential candidate regardless of whether you live in California or Ohio. Yet a Republican vote in California is meaningless because California assigns it’s electoral votes as winner takes all based on state level results. If 51% of voters in California vote Democrat then all 55 electoral votes go towards the Democrats. This clearly disenfranchises conservative voters. California has the ability to assign it’s electoral votes proportionally and enfranchise millions of conservative voters. Of course they won’t because it would hurt the Democrats chances of winning unless all the other states followed suit. Yet if it’s a question of right and wrong then shouldn’t California do the right thing and give conservatives a voice regardless?