5 ms·

> Yeah but maybe that's a good thing. Only if you start with the assumption that different individuals voters should have different amounts of political influe

by baddox 7y ago

> Yeah but maybe that's a good thing. Only if you start with the assumption that different individuals voters should have different amounts of political influence, which the NPV movement is explicitly rejecting. > Otherwise you have a situation like New York where NYC gets to dictate everything since it's super high population density even though the majority of geographical NY state is farmers. So the farmers get screwed over by the interests of the city folk who have never even stepped foot out of the city. I think the problem here is that you're portraying it as if cities or states are the agents making decisions, rather than individuals. Obviously the electoral college establishes states as the agents making decisions in Presidential elections. The NPV movement seeks to make individuals the agents that decide Presidential elections.

nitrogen 7y ago
An individual voter in Wyoming should have more say over what happens in Wyoming than an individual voter in New York. Given the geographic clustering of opinions, it is not adequate to give every individual equal say over every area.
- azernik 7y ago
  The solution is federalism, which we already have; a Wyoming voter controls the Wyoming state government, which has power over things that are purely internal Wyoming concerns.
  - umvi 7y ago
    What incentive do rural states have to stay in the union if the federal government is controlled by populous state bullies? Wouldn't it be better for them to fragment into separate-but-open-border-countries like the EU?
    - baddox 7y ago
      Probably roughly the same incentives any state has ever had to join and remain in a federation. Things like free trade and movement among states and a combined military. One of the incentives to remain in a federation should not be the ability to disproportionately influence the federal government compared to other member states.
- baddox 7y ago
  That's certainly fine for state-by-state issues, and it is the case for most of them, like state income tax, sales tax, most laws, etc. Unfortunately there's only one President, which is why this NPV issue concerns the presidential election and not anything else.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> I think the problem here is that you're portraying it as if cities or states are the agents making decisions, rather than individuals. That was exactly the point of the Electoral College - that states would elect the president. You may think that's a bad idea. That's fine. You may want to change it. But it's a really fundamental change to the architecture. If it's to be changed, it should be changed by a constitutional amendment, not just by a compact among the states.
- baddox 7y ago
  I very much understand the point of the electoral college and the point of the NPV movement. And I don't necessarily disagree that a constitutional amendment would be a better way to change the policy.
- JshWright 7y ago
  So... the EC empowers the states, but the states shouldn't have power?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- burkaman 7y ago
  No, that was not the point, why do people keep saying this? The framers were very open about the purpose. They thought that the average voter could not be trusted to choose a president, and that a direct election would result in "tumult and disorder". Instead, the decision would be made by "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station", who would not be so easily swayed by the "heats and ferments" of the people. Also, the framers expected that most of the time, there would be too many candidates for any to win a majority. In that case, the House would select a winner from the candidates. A system where electors do not make their own decisions, and one candidate always wins a majority, was simply not conceived of. https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm This is the most easily digestible evidence, but Hamilton is obviously not the only one who thought this way. He is representing the position of most of the framers, that's why the system he describes here is what ended up in the constitution. Note that there is no mention at all of rural vs. urban, underrepresented communities, states' rights, anything like that. Those factors contributed to the creation of the Senate and the House, but not the electoral college. That was entirely due to the men writing the constitution not trusting the men they were allowing to vote.
jpindar 7y ago
>I think the problem here is that you're portraying it as if cities or states are the agents making decisions, rather than individuals Well yeah. There's a reason why it's called the United STATES.

by baddox 7y ago

nitrogen 7y ago

An individual voter in Wyoming should have more say over what happens in Wyoming than an individual voter in New York. Given the geographic clustering of opinions, it is not adequate to give every individual equal say over every area.

azernik 7y ago
The solution is federalism, which we already have; a Wyoming voter controls the Wyoming state government, which has power over things that are purely internal Wyoming concerns.
- umvi 7y ago
  What incentive do rural states have to stay in the union if the federal government is controlled by populous state bullies? Wouldn't it be better for them to fragment into separate-but-open-border-countries like the EU?
  - baddox 7y ago
    Probably roughly the same incentives any state has ever had to join and remain in a federation. Things like free trade and movement among states and a combined military. One of the incentives to remain in a federation should not be the ability to disproportionately influence the federal government compared to other member states.
baddox 7y ago
That's certainly fine for state-by-state issues, and it is the case for most of them, like state income tax, sales tax, most laws, etc. Unfortunately there's only one President, which is why this NPV issue concerns the presidential election and not anything else.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> I think the problem here is that you're portraying it as if cities or states are the agents making decisions, rather than individuals. That was exactly the point of the Electoral College - that states would elect the president. You may think that's a bad idea. That's fine. You may want to change it. But it's a really fundamental change to the architecture. If it's to be changed, it should be changed by a constitutional amendment, not just by a compact among the states.

baddox 7y ago
I very much understand the point of the electoral college and the point of the NPV movement. And I don't necessarily disagree that a constitutional amendment would be a better way to change the policy.
JshWright 7y ago
So... the EC empowers the states, but the states shouldn't have power?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
burkaman 7y ago
No, that was not the point, why do people keep saying this? The framers were very open about the purpose. They thought that the average voter could not be trusted to choose a president, and that a direct election would result in "tumult and disorder". Instead, the decision would be made by "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station", who would not be so easily swayed by the "heats and ferments" of the people. Also, the framers expected that most of the time, there would be too many candidates for any to win a majority. In that case, the House would select a winner from the candidates. A system where electors do not make their own decisions, and one candidate always wins a majority, was simply not conceived of. https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm This is the most easily digestible evidence, but Hamilton is obviously not the only one who thought this way. He is representing the position of most of the framers, that's why the system he describes here is what ended up in the constitution. Note that there is no mention at all of rural vs. urban, underrepresented communities, states' rights, anything like that. Those factors contributed to the creation of the Senate and the House, but not the electoral college. That was entirely due to the men writing the constitution not trusting the men they were allowing to vote.

jpindar 7y ago

>I think the problem here is that you're portraying it as if cities or states are the agents making decisions, rather than individuals Well yeah. There's a reason why it's called the United STATES.