7 ms·

The electoral college was created to strike a balance between valuing a diversity of perspectives and popularity of perspectives. The probability that a geograp

The electoral college was created to strike a balance between valuing a diversity of perspectives and popularity of perspectives. The probability that a geographically restricted monoculture gets it right is very close to zero.

paggle 7y ago
The electoral college gives extra votes to certain people. Why stop at rural vs urban? Why not give extra votes to people shorter than 5 feet? To people with black hair and blue eyes? To people who can wiggle their ears and roll their tongues at the same time?
- koboll 7y ago
  The only people who say that are those who want rural people's values to have an outsized influence in our elections. That is, conservatives.
  - squirrelicus 7y ago
    I certainly am conservative but the things I said are not false. The USA government is not merely a representative democracy, it's more formally a republic. Consider this: the purpose behind the bicameral legislature is that in order for the federal government to act, it requires the consent of both the majority of the population and the majority of the states subject to it. If the population and the states can't agree, then we shouldn't do it at the federal level. It's foundational to the structure, and it's a process of slowing down the system against them whims of both the elite and the masses. If you disagree with this, that's perfectly fine. I don't know a conservative that isn't in favor of CA and NY seceding. After all, most of the wealthy people live there anyway. Conduct the Marxist cleansing behind the border wall, but don't bring the rest of us into the shit. Let CA burn itself to the ground, we don't have a problem with that. Don't bring the rest of us down with you. We shouldn't have to support the insanity.
    - koboll 7y ago
      >Consider this: the purpose behind the bicameral legislature is that in order for the federal government to act, it requires the consent of both the majority of the population and the majority of the states subject to it. The idea that this is a virtue that outweighs the effective disenfranchisement of hundreds of millions of people rests on the presupposition that it is virtuous that certain states should have an outsized voice. There are two obvious problems with this. The first is that its central claimed virtue is false in practice. It does not actually reliably give smaller states more power, as many proponents claim. Voters' voices in certain areas of Florida matter much, much more than the voice of anyone in Wyoming. The second is that states themselves were created either 1) somewhat arbitrarily, by the happenstance of where various colonial landing parties decided to set up shop, or 2) through explicitly political processes where the states' admissions were pushed through Congress, in no small part, to help win Presidential elections. The system was arbitrary from the outset. It has been gamed ever since.
      - squirrelicus 7y ago
        It is not possible to create a non arbitrary system. You may attempt to create what appears to you to be a more parsimonious system, but know, at least, that in doing so you will change the fundamental power dynamic. Thank God we need the consent of a supermajority of Congress and 3/4ths of the states to change the electoral college. It's not going to happen, just give it up.
        koboll 7y ago
        Once enough states join the National Popular Vote compact to clear 270 electors, the electoral college will be nullified in practice. It may take a couple more decades, but it'll happen eventually.
        squirrelicus 7y ago
        Don't worry. The first time a Republican wins the popular vote, but Democrat carries the state, people will cry about their vote not being counted in THAT race, will drop out of the compact fast, and electors will probably defect no matter what the state does. NPV doesn't really solve the problem.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hannasanarion 7y ago
That's not what the electoral college does. It's a post-hoc justification your high school teacher probably came up with on the fly, and you clearly haven't thought about it critically since. The only thing the electoral college does is give the voting power of local minorities to local majorities. 3 million people in the state vote for A 4 million people in the state vote for B B gets 7 million people's worth of electoral votes, A gets nothing. Repeat 47 times. There is no explanation for this that makes sense. It wasn't designed this way, it happened by accident. The framers tried to stop it in the 1790s and 1800s, but there was no political will: everybody wanted to exploit the antidemocratic loophole in the constitution instead of fixing it.
- squirrelicus 7y ago
  Woo there buddy, slow down there a gorsh durned second. The nature of our republic and bicameral system is a recognition that both the elites (in the form of states, in this case) and the population have important things to contribute. If your fundamental theory of politics is that the elite don't have anything extraordinary to contribute, then how about you start by cleaning your own house and getting rid of superdelegates before you go on trying to change the entire country to match your pet political power distribution

paggle 7y ago

The electoral college gives extra votes to certain people. Why stop at rural vs urban? Why not give extra votes to people shorter than 5 feet? To people with black hair and blue eyes? To people who can wiggle their ears and roll their tongues at the same time?

koboll 7y ago
The only people who say that are those who want rural people's values to have an outsized influence in our elections. That is, conservatives.
- squirrelicus 7y ago
  I certainly am conservative but the things I said are not false. The USA government is not merely a representative democracy, it's more formally a republic. Consider this: the purpose behind the bicameral legislature is that in order for the federal government to act, it requires the consent of both the majority of the population and the majority of the states subject to it. If the population and the states can't agree, then we shouldn't do it at the federal level. It's foundational to the structure, and it's a process of slowing down the system against them whims of both the elite and the masses. If you disagree with this, that's perfectly fine. I don't know a conservative that isn't in favor of CA and NY seceding. After all, most of the wealthy people live there anyway. Conduct the Marxist cleansing behind the border wall, but don't bring the rest of us into the shit. Let CA burn itself to the ground, we don't have a problem with that. Don't bring the rest of us down with you. We shouldn't have to support the insanity.
  - koboll 7y ago
    >Consider this: the purpose behind the bicameral legislature is that in order for the federal government to act, it requires the consent of both the majority of the population and the majority of the states subject to it. The idea that this is a virtue that outweighs the effective disenfranchisement of hundreds of millions of people rests on the presupposition that it is virtuous that certain states should have an outsized voice. There are two obvious problems with this. The first is that its central claimed virtue is false in practice. It does not actually reliably give smaller states more power, as many proponents claim. Voters' voices in certain areas of Florida matter much, much more than the voice of anyone in Wyoming. The second is that states themselves were created either 1) somewhat arbitrarily, by the happenstance of where various colonial landing parties decided to set up shop, or 2) through explicitly political processes where the states' admissions were pushed through Congress, in no small part, to help win Presidential elections. The system was arbitrary from the outset. It has been gamed ever since.
    - squirrelicus 7y ago
      It is not possible to create a non arbitrary system. You may attempt to create what appears to you to be a more parsimonious system, but know, at least, that in doing so you will change the fundamental power dynamic. Thank God we need the consent of a supermajority of Congress and 3/4ths of the states to change the electoral college. It's not going to happen, just give it up.
      - koboll 7y ago
        Once enough states join the National Popular Vote compact to clear 270 electors, the electoral college will be nullified in practice. It may take a couple more decades, but it'll happen eventually.
        squirrelicus 7y ago
        Don't worry. The first time a Republican wins the popular vote, but Democrat carries the state, people will cry about their vote not being counted in THAT race, will drop out of the compact fast, and electors will probably defect no matter what the state does. NPV doesn't really solve the problem.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hannasanarion 7y ago

That's not what the electoral college does. It's a post-hoc justification your high school teacher probably came up with on the fly, and you clearly haven't thought about it critically since. The only thing the electoral college does is give the voting power of local minorities to local majorities. 3 million people in the state vote for A 4 million people in the state vote for B B gets 7 million people's worth of electoral votes, A gets nothing. Repeat 47 times. There is no explanation for this that makes sense. It wasn't designed this way, it happened by accident. The framers tried to stop it in the 1790s and 1800s, but there was no political will: everybody wanted to exploit the antidemocratic loophole in the constitution instead of fixing it.

squirrelicus 7y ago
Woo there buddy, slow down there a gorsh durned second. The nature of our republic and bicameral system is a recognition that both the elites (in the form of states, in this case) and the population have important things to contribute. If your fundamental theory of politics is that the elite don't have anything extraordinary to contribute, then how about you start by cleaning your own house and getting rid of superdelegates before you go on trying to change the entire country to match your pet political power distribution