5 ms·

How does removing the Electoral College help with inequity of power? Wouldn't it just concentrate decision making into the very powerful, densely populated area

How does removing the Electoral College help with inequity of power? Wouldn't it just concentrate decision making into the very powerful, densely populated areas. That's specifically what it's meant to combat.

killjoywashere 8y ago
> Wouldn't it just concentrate decision making into the very powerful, densely populated areas The value of a vote in Idaho would be equal to the value of a vote in Miami. Yes, that's what I mean. The system has clearly been corrupted in the other direction, where oligarchs have purchased, for very small sums, leverage over politicians from these population-small electoral areas. Maybe we could at least make them pay real money.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  These are politically diverse areas that need equal representation. No one had a problem with the electoral college until their candidate lost in 2016, but that election proved that the electoral college is still relevant and useful. New York and California should not dominate US politics.
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    Barbara Boxer was formally taking action agains the electoral college at least as far back as 2004.
solveit 8y ago
Because it's the people that matter, not the area of land. Or do you believe Siberia and the Australian outback should dominate a hypothetical democratic world-state? Anyway, the electoral college is a 200+ year-old compromise meant to get the individual states to sign up for the union. At some point we should realize that 18th century geopolitics is not really relevant any more.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  It's doing a fine job keeping at least a minimum of diversity in our political system. Everyone knows we'd move to a monoculture if we eliminated the electoral college. That people are complaining about it means it's working as intended. And yes, people living in Siberia should have a say in politics and not have their opinions nullified by Moscow. Not everyone will or wants to live in an urban area and it's a feature of the system that their will is equally represented.
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    Something to consider: large states (e.g. Texas) have more small, remote towns that small states (e.g. Utah) do. If you're worried about making sure roads, water, education, power, and postal services make it to the outback, the large states have more people voting in that direction than the small states do. Those interests are still represented. And there are businesses on the coasts (e.g. shipping firms) which are keenly interested in the care and feeding of the families of workers managing grain mills and rail lines in South Dakota.
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      I think people are always going to vote in their own best interest (even if outsiders don't think they are) so it's more important to have equal representation for every state than it is to "trust" that some states (or companies) will look after others. Btw, I don't think Utah is a small state :) It's the 13th largest by land mass.
      - killjoywashere 8y ago
        > I think people are always going to vote in their own best interest How many railroad workers, miners, and other working class laborers in Utah vote Republican, despite the fact that they would stand to benefit far more from Democratic policies? Why do they do that? Is it possible that certain well-funded actors with access to media markets have exerted "nudge"-like influence over their thinking for decades? Is it possible they're relatively isolated from the world and operate to a degree in the fearful state of being that isolated humans tend to develop?

killjoywashere 8y ago

> Wouldn't it just concentrate decision making into the very powerful, densely populated areas The value of a vote in Idaho would be equal to the value of a vote in Miami. Yes, that's what I mean. The system has clearly been corrupted in the other direction, where oligarchs have purchased, for very small sums, leverage over politicians from these population-small electoral areas. Maybe we could at least make them pay real money.

malvosenior 8y ago
These are politically diverse areas that need equal representation. No one had a problem with the electoral college until their candidate lost in 2016, but that election proved that the electoral college is still relevant and useful. New York and California should not dominate US politics.
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  Barbara Boxer was formally taking action agains the electoral college at least as far back as 2004.

solveit 8y ago

Because it's the people that matter, not the area of land. Or do you believe Siberia and the Australian outback should dominate a hypothetical democratic world-state? Anyway, the electoral college is a 200+ year-old compromise meant to get the individual states to sign up for the union. At some point we should realize that 18th century geopolitics is not really relevant any more.

malvosenior 8y ago
It's doing a fine job keeping at least a minimum of diversity in our political system. Everyone knows we'd move to a monoculture if we eliminated the electoral college. That people are complaining about it means it's working as intended. And yes, people living in Siberia should have a say in politics and not have their opinions nullified by Moscow. Not everyone will or wants to live in an urban area and it's a feature of the system that their will is equally represented.
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  Something to consider: large states (e.g. Texas) have more small, remote towns that small states (e.g. Utah) do. If you're worried about making sure roads, water, education, power, and postal services make it to the outback, the large states have more people voting in that direction than the small states do. Those interests are still represented. And there are businesses on the coasts (e.g. shipping firms) which are keenly interested in the care and feeding of the families of workers managing grain mills and rail lines in South Dakota.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    I think people are always going to vote in their own best interest (even if outsiders don't think they are) so it's more important to have equal representation for every state than it is to "trust" that some states (or companies) will look after others. Btw, I don't think Utah is a small state :) It's the 13th largest by land mass.
    - killjoywashere 8y ago
      > I think people are always going to vote in their own best interest How many railroad workers, miners, and other working class laborers in Utah vote Republican, despite the fact that they would stand to benefit far more from Democratic policies? Why do they do that? Is it possible that certain well-funded actors with access to media markets have exerted "nudge"-like influence over their thinking for decades? Is it possible they're relatively isolated from the world and operate to a degree in the fearful state of being that isolated humans tend to develop?