3 ms·

> "Tyranny of the minority" gets this issue exactly backwards. The problem the Electoral College was designed to mitigate is a tyranny of the majority. The poi

> "Tyranny of the minority" gets this issue exactly backwards. The problem the Electoral College was designed to mitigate is a tyranny of the majority. The point they're making is that while it was designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority, it goes too far and results in a tyranny of the minority. > Why do any of these concerns need Federal intervention to solve? Why can't LAC and Arkansas and Nevada manage their own affairs? I understand rare emergencies like natural disasters require pooling national resources, but everyone talks now as if no locality at all can survive from day to day without Federal benefits. No one mentioned federal benefits. We are talking about the relative voting power of a voter in one area versus another in the presidential election. Let's not get distracted here.

pdonis 7y ago
> No one mentioned federal benefits. Sure you did; you said LAC voters don't have their concerns addressed as well because they are part of a large, populous state whose EC votes count for less per capita. My question is, if LAC is capable of managing its own affairs, why does it care? In other words, you're assuming that the President's job is to "take care of everyone's concerns", so everyone needs an equal vote to elect the President. That seems to me to be absurd. The President's job is to faithfully execute the laws and to make executive decisions about national needs like defense and foreign policy. It's not to address the individual concerns of every voter or the local concerns of every city, county, etc. Similar remarks apply to the Federal government more generally. The fact that everyone takes it for granted now that the Federal government is supposed to address everyone's concerns is a sign of how corrupt and inefficient our system has become. Everyone judges their Senators and Representatives, not according to how well they take care of national issues, but how much pork they send home.
- eropple 7y ago
  Even when you take for granted--and we shouldn't, but just for funsies we will--that the whole point of the thing is to make executive decisions about national needs...why the heck should Nevada get a bigger say than Los Angeles County? It has become evident that the federalist experiment has failed; because an integrated modern society cuts across state lines, while land can't vote and people matter more than land. Everything else is a side effect, no matter how tightly it's clung to by parties whose high-minded rhetoric, if we're being frank, is honored more in the breach than the observance as they look for low-status, low-power people to cudgel, using the guise of federalism to make it easier to do in their own little pond.
  - nightski 7y ago
    It doesn't though. Do you really believe voting is the most powerful way to influence lawmakers? There generally is far more wealth, power, and influence in population centers. How can you feel like some of the most powerful cities in the world are getting an unfair shake?
  - Redoubts 7y ago
    > It has become evident that the federalist experiment has failed Not so much failed, but massively misaligned after the civil war. The nation made many compromises at every level for slave power, and should have renegotiated everything afterwards.
    - eropple 7y ago
      Agreed. I should have said that American federalism has failed; that misalignment is endemic to America--it goes back as far as the Missouri bleeping Compromise, and that's just the part labeled "America"--and is probably unfixable. (Though I worry for the EU, too.)
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    > why the heck should Nevada get a bigger say than Los Angeles County? To start with, states are the compositional unit of the United States. If Los Angeles County wants to become its own state, there is a process to do that. But to answer the correct question: Nevada has the same say as California, both being states.
    - eropple 7y ago
      "It should be the way it is because that's the way it is." Thank you for illustrating the bankruptcy of the regressive position.
      - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        How so? What you just said has no bearing on a comment describing that there is a solution to the problem. I guess if you want to just "thoughts and prayers" it then that's your prerogative.
- thomascgalvin 7y ago
  > In other words, you're assuming that the President's job is to "take care of everyone's concerns", so everyone needs an equal vote to elect the President. That seems to me to be absurd. Yeah you're probably right. Let's just disenfranchise more than half the population of the country. That'll give the federal government a ton of legitimacy! > The President's job is to faithfully execute the laws and to make executive decisions about national needs like defense and foreign policy. And we the people get to decide which candidate will do the better job. Or we should. But because of the electoral college, we don't.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > we the people get to decide which candidate will do the better job. Or we should. But because of the electoral college, we don't. If we accept that we the people should get to directly decide, then of course the decision should be made by popular vote. But that's just assuming your conclusion. Also, this is a different argument from the one you gave before: now you're accepting that the President's job is not to take care of everyone's concerns.

pdonis 7y ago

> No one mentioned federal benefits. Sure you did; you said LAC voters don't have their concerns addressed as well because they are part of a large, populous state whose EC votes count for less per capita. My question is, if LAC is capable of managing its own affairs, why does it care? In other words, you're assuming that the President's job is to "take care of everyone's concerns", so everyone needs an equal vote to elect the President. That seems to me to be absurd. The President's job is to faithfully execute the laws and to make executive decisions about national needs like defense and foreign policy. It's not to address the individual concerns of every voter or the local concerns of every city, county, etc. Similar remarks apply to the Federal government more generally. The fact that everyone takes it for granted now that the Federal government is supposed to address everyone's concerns is a sign of how corrupt and inefficient our system has become. Everyone judges their Senators and Representatives, not according to how well they take care of national issues, but how much pork they send home.

eropple 7y ago
Even when you take for granted--and we shouldn't, but just for funsies we will--that the whole point of the thing is to make executive decisions about national needs...why the heck should Nevada get a bigger say than Los Angeles County? It has become evident that the federalist experiment has failed; because an integrated modern society cuts across state lines, while land can't vote and people matter more than land. Everything else is a side effect, no matter how tightly it's clung to by parties whose high-minded rhetoric, if we're being frank, is honored more in the breach than the observance as they look for low-status, low-power people to cudgel, using the guise of federalism to make it easier to do in their own little pond.
- nightski 7y ago
  It doesn't though. Do you really believe voting is the most powerful way to influence lawmakers? There generally is far more wealth, power, and influence in population centers. How can you feel like some of the most powerful cities in the world are getting an unfair shake?
- Redoubts 7y ago
  > It has become evident that the federalist experiment has failed Not so much failed, but massively misaligned after the civil war. The nation made many compromises at every level for slave power, and should have renegotiated everything afterwards.
  - eropple 7y ago
    Agreed. I should have said that American federalism has failed; that misalignment is endemic to America--it goes back as far as the Missouri bleeping Compromise, and that's just the part labeled "America"--and is probably unfixable. (Though I worry for the EU, too.)
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  > why the heck should Nevada get a bigger say than Los Angeles County? To start with, states are the compositional unit of the United States. If Los Angeles County wants to become its own state, there is a process to do that. But to answer the correct question: Nevada has the same say as California, both being states.
  - eropple 7y ago
    "It should be the way it is because that's the way it is." Thank you for illustrating the bankruptcy of the regressive position.
    - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
      How so? What you just said has no bearing on a comment describing that there is a solution to the problem. I guess if you want to just "thoughts and prayers" it then that's your prerogative.
thomascgalvin 7y ago
> In other words, you're assuming that the President's job is to "take care of everyone's concerns", so everyone needs an equal vote to elect the President. That seems to me to be absurd. Yeah you're probably right. Let's just disenfranchise more than half the population of the country. That'll give the federal government a ton of legitimacy! > The President's job is to faithfully execute the laws and to make executive decisions about national needs like defense and foreign policy. And we the people get to decide which candidate will do the better job. Or we should. But because of the electoral college, we don't.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > we the people get to decide which candidate will do the better job. Or we should. But because of the electoral college, we don't. If we accept that we the people should get to directly decide, then of course the decision should be made by popular vote. But that's just assuming your conclusion. Also, this is a different argument from the one you gave before: now you're accepting that the President's job is not to take care of everyone's concerns.