5 ms·

It's not about division of power between rural/urban or big states/small states. The Electoral College is about buffering purely democratic power. The President

It's not about division of power between rural/urban or big states/small states. The Electoral College is about buffering purely democratic power. The President doesn't represent "the people." He/she represents the interests of the states. The Legislative Branch represents the will of the people (most directly through the House of Representatives). One of the biggest problems is vesting too much power and importance in the Executive, which was never intended. Throw the balance of power out of whack, and we get these conversations (the President has to represent "the people" and therefore should be elected by popular vote)

vturner 7y ago
I wish someone with $$ would start plastering this message everywhere the absurd "get rid of the elctoral college" debate comes up. We are not a democracy, seriously no one wants a democracy of 300 million plus. We are a federation of states that is supposed to have most of the control in their region and sacrifice a little bit of control to the federal government for purposes of defense and commerce. Your "democracy" should be your state legislature, but sadly authoritarians of the past have taken that away.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  We've been giving up control to the federal government because more often than not, the local and state governments have failed [1]. Political corruption, corporate interests etc somehow don't just vanish and go away when you give power to the states. There's a balance to be made between federal and state government powers. And ultimately the electoral college is one of the things that needs to go, because it unfairly tips the system in favor of extremely rural areas whom influence policy that then directly harm those living in more urban environments. [1] https://www.insider.com/what-us-cities-looked-like-before-epa-regulated-pollution-2019-8 https://www.insider.com/what-us-cities-looked-like-before-ep...
  - dgzl 7y ago
    The point isn't that corruption goes away when power is given to the states, the point is that the state is easier to protest than the federal government. I can get to my state capital in ~4 hours of driving, but it would take me >40 hours to get to DC. The electoral college is better than straight democracy.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      It should be obvious by now that if that were the case, scenarios like what happened in Flint, Michigan should've ended with Rick Snyder in jail and more action taken. And in cases like these, the federal government is needed in order to apply some culpability to times when the local government behaves negligently. Not to mention this only really works if the state government actually cares about local issues, otherwise you end up with cases such as states vying to ban gay marriage because there's a tyranny of the majority at the local state level and a tyranny of the minority at the federal level. It's a lose-lose situation because then the rural votes dictate not only the things within their state but the things that are completely outside of their purview.
      - malandrew 7y ago
        > the federal government is needed in order to apply some culpability to times when the local government behaves negligently. And who will apply culpability when the federal government behaves negligently? Creating a higher institution to address the issue just shifts the problem of apply culpability to an institution that you have even less chance of influencing.
        fzeroracer 7y ago
        The answer is that we have a system of checks and balances in the federal government which are meant to ensure that one branch doesn't overshadow another. The states and the electoral college were supposed to add another layer of said balance, but what they've done is shifted power further towards the federal government advancing rural interests. Many of those rural areas could not survive without the federal government's aid because they already suffer from dwindling infrastructure and population. Now if you want to break apart the federal government entirely from the equation, then you would also have to agree to let those rural areas die out instead of being propped up through subsidy and taxes from the urban taxpayer's pocket. Otherwise you would be arguing that not only do the rural states get to dictate policy, but they also get to benefit from the GDP generated by the urban states. Why is it fair then, for the federal government to give preferential treatment?
- dahart 7y ago
  Your argument seems confused to me, but maybe I don’t quite understand, can you elaborate? We do have state level democracy. The electoral college’s purpose is solely for presidential elections, not for local elections. Why shouldn’t we have a democracy for presidential elections? Your reasons given (local control) don’t apply to federal elections. Even with the electoral college, we’re pretty close to democratic representation for president anyway, and the discrepancy between what we have, a federal republic, and a pure democracy doesn’t serve the same purpose that it used to. So why should we keep it? Why is the proposal to get rid of the electoral college “absurd”? What do you mean about authoritarians taking away state level democracy?
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    The structure of the Federal government is fundamentally geared towards mediating the relationships between the various states, as that was its original purpose. Actual governance of the populace was the purview of state government. Over time, however, decisions about domestic law have increasingly been made at the Federal level. At this point, the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution is used to justify almost any regulation that the Federal government wants to pass. When that doesn’t work, availability of Federal tax money is made contingent on states aligning their laws with whatever national policy is. Also, the legislature has been ceding its rule-making authority to the executive by passing broadly-worded legislation and leaving the details to administrative rules committees that work for the executive. I suspect that ‘vturner is suggesting the correct fix is to shift the overall balance of power back towards the more democratic parts of government instead of reforming the election process of the government’s chief clerk.
    - sytelus 7y ago
      Thanks for insightful comments. Its sometime easy to forget that USA means union of states. Each state has a freedom to create its own laws within the limits of constitution to satisfy needs of its population. The way I see it, different states present different philosophy and lifestyle. People are free to get attached to the one they feel most aligned. President is supposed to be representing this union of states, not just the major population centers.
- foolbiter 7y ago
  All the real money is already on the side of preserving the electoral college. You should examine why this is and reassess.
  - nerdponx 7y ago
    There are plenty of good things in this world that bad people can twist to their benefit.
- ladyattis 7y ago
  A federation would be fine if it was a proper one. One where cities have an equal position against their state inasmuch as they represent their residents and those residents have more say over the state government as a result. Today, we have a dated system which refuses to update its political infrastructure where it's needed. Now, more than ever, there's a need to make more direct levers of power to the citizens of a given location and less power to the technocrats and bureaucrats which 'represent' them.
- etripe 7y ago
  Do you think any reform is ill-advised? What would for instance be wrong with giving each state 1 vote in the EC? Upon naive inspection, that would at least get rid of battleground/swing states somewhat.
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  > We are not a democracy, seriously no one wants a democracy of 300 million plus. I do. This sounds much better than a federation of states with weird layers of indirection based on borders drawn by historical accident or anachronistic geographic boundaries like rivers.
  - TbobbyZ 7y ago
    Say you are in the 49% in the democracy that is for a policy, but 51% are against it. Do you really want that 51% to tell you what to do?
    - UncleMeat 7y ago
      That is preferable to having only the people in a handful of swing states pick the president (who, by executive orders, tells me what to do).
marcell 7y ago
I don't know about that, specifically this part: > He/she represents the interests of the states This assumes that states in America have some sort of distinct cultural/political interests, divided along state lines. This isn't really the case. For example there are no significant cultural differences between North Dakota and South Dakota. The dividing line there is pretty arbitrary. Similarly, some places that have very significant cultural/political differences are lumped together, like the Bay Area and the Central Valley in California. Your argument would make more sense if applied to a political arrangement like the EU. Each member of the EU has a long history as a sovereign, distinct political and cultural entity. The border between, for example, Hungary and Romania is much much more significant than that between Colorado and Arizona.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  But every state does have a long history of sovereignty. Your point of view would require completely redefining what the US is as a nation.
- jack_h 7y ago
  I can't speak specifically to North and South Dakota, but having lived in both Arizona and Colorado I can tell you they absolutely are different places culturally and politically. Speaking to your second point, even in the EU this can be the case. Look at Wallonia and Flanders in Belgium. Spain is also a good example, Catalonia especially.
- kortilla 7y ago
  California and Alabama are basically the same.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Los Angeles and Birmingham? Napa and Cumberland? Yeah, pretty much. The red and blue on electoral college maps is a lie. About 40% of Californians supported Trump in 2016, and vice versa for Alabama.
hyperpape 7y ago
I think this is anachronistic. Yes, there are places where the founders suggested that there would be a conflict between large and small states. But can we point to any reasonably non-controversial case where the electoral college has acted to safeguard the "American republic"? There are two points here. First: the Supreme Court has many controversies, but also many decisions that seem very compelling in hindsight. I tend to vote for Democrats, and I'm not entirely convinced I'd disagree with the median Scalia decision (I can remember agreeing with several). It seems to fare better as an anti-majoritarian institution. Second: suppose, for the sake of argument, that you think that Trump and Bush are great examples favoring the electoral college. In both cases, the results are extremely fragile. Either candidate could've easily lost, and the electoral college was a small bit of noise in the result (some early predictions suggested Obama would win the 2012 electoral college, but lose the popular vote). The fact that a mechanism has given you results you like in two cases, by chance, is not the same as saying that it's an important constitutional safeguard.
curiousgal 7y ago
>The President doesn't represent "the people." Isn't that obvious by the fact that the electors are under no legal obligation to choose the candidate they were voted to do?

vturner 7y ago

I wish someone with $$ would start plastering this message everywhere the absurd "get rid of the elctoral college" debate comes up. We are not a democracy, seriously no one wants a democracy of 300 million plus. We are a federation of states that is supposed to have most of the control in their region and sacrifice a little bit of control to the federal government for purposes of defense and commerce. Your "democracy" should be your state legislature, but sadly authoritarians of the past have taken that away.

fzeroracer 7y ago
We've been giving up control to the federal government because more often than not, the local and state governments have failed [1]. Political corruption, corporate interests etc somehow don't just vanish and go away when you give power to the states. There's a balance to be made between federal and state government powers. And ultimately the electoral college is one of the things that needs to go, because it unfairly tips the system in favor of extremely rural areas whom influence policy that then directly harm those living in more urban environments. [1] https://www.insider.com/what-us-cities-looked-like-before-epa-regulated-pollution-2019-8 https://www.insider.com/what-us-cities-looked-like-before-ep...
- dgzl 7y ago
  The point isn't that corruption goes away when power is given to the states, the point is that the state is easier to protest than the federal government. I can get to my state capital in ~4 hours of driving, but it would take me >40 hours to get to DC. The electoral college is better than straight democracy.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    It should be obvious by now that if that were the case, scenarios like what happened in Flint, Michigan should've ended with Rick Snyder in jail and more action taken. And in cases like these, the federal government is needed in order to apply some culpability to times when the local government behaves negligently. Not to mention this only really works if the state government actually cares about local issues, otherwise you end up with cases such as states vying to ban gay marriage because there's a tyranny of the majority at the local state level and a tyranny of the minority at the federal level. It's a lose-lose situation because then the rural votes dictate not only the things within their state but the things that are completely outside of their purview.
    - malandrew 7y ago
      > the federal government is needed in order to apply some culpability to times when the local government behaves negligently. And who will apply culpability when the federal government behaves negligently? Creating a higher institution to address the issue just shifts the problem of apply culpability to an institution that you have even less chance of influencing.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        The answer is that we have a system of checks and balances in the federal government which are meant to ensure that one branch doesn't overshadow another. The states and the electoral college were supposed to add another layer of said balance, but what they've done is shifted power further towards the federal government advancing rural interests. Many of those rural areas could not survive without the federal government's aid because they already suffer from dwindling infrastructure and population. Now if you want to break apart the federal government entirely from the equation, then you would also have to agree to let those rural areas die out instead of being propped up through subsidy and taxes from the urban taxpayer's pocket. Otherwise you would be arguing that not only do the rural states get to dictate policy, but they also get to benefit from the GDP generated by the urban states. Why is it fair then, for the federal government to give preferential treatment?
dahart 7y ago
Your argument seems confused to me, but maybe I don’t quite understand, can you elaborate? We do have state level democracy. The electoral college’s purpose is solely for presidential elections, not for local elections. Why shouldn’t we have a democracy for presidential elections? Your reasons given (local control) don’t apply to federal elections. Even with the electoral college, we’re pretty close to democratic representation for president anyway, and the discrepancy between what we have, a federal republic, and a pure democracy doesn’t serve the same purpose that it used to. So why should we keep it? Why is the proposal to get rid of the electoral college “absurd”? What do you mean about authoritarians taking away state level democracy?
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  The structure of the Federal government is fundamentally geared towards mediating the relationships between the various states, as that was its original purpose. Actual governance of the populace was the purview of state government. Over time, however, decisions about domestic law have increasingly been made at the Federal level. At this point, the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution is used to justify almost any regulation that the Federal government wants to pass. When that doesn’t work, availability of Federal tax money is made contingent on states aligning their laws with whatever national policy is. Also, the legislature has been ceding its rule-making authority to the executive by passing broadly-worded legislation and leaving the details to administrative rules committees that work for the executive. I suspect that ‘vturner is suggesting the correct fix is to shift the overall balance of power back towards the more democratic parts of government instead of reforming the election process of the government’s chief clerk.
  - sytelus 7y ago
    Thanks for insightful comments. Its sometime easy to forget that USA means union of states. Each state has a freedom to create its own laws within the limits of constitution to satisfy needs of its population. The way I see it, different states present different philosophy and lifestyle. People are free to get attached to the one they feel most aligned. President is supposed to be representing this union of states, not just the major population centers.
foolbiter 7y ago
All the real money is already on the side of preserving the electoral college. You should examine why this is and reassess.
- nerdponx 7y ago
  There are plenty of good things in this world that bad people can twist to their benefit.
ladyattis 7y ago
A federation would be fine if it was a proper one. One where cities have an equal position against their state inasmuch as they represent their residents and those residents have more say over the state government as a result. Today, we have a dated system which refuses to update its political infrastructure where it's needed. Now, more than ever, there's a need to make more direct levers of power to the citizens of a given location and less power to the technocrats and bureaucrats which 'represent' them.
etripe 7y ago
Do you think any reform is ill-advised? What would for instance be wrong with giving each state 1 vote in the EC? Upon naive inspection, that would at least get rid of battleground/swing states somewhat.
UncleMeat 7y ago
> We are not a democracy, seriously no one wants a democracy of 300 million plus. I do. This sounds much better than a federation of states with weird layers of indirection based on borders drawn by historical accident or anachronistic geographic boundaries like rivers.
- TbobbyZ 7y ago
  Say you are in the 49% in the democracy that is for a policy, but 51% are against it. Do you really want that 51% to tell you what to do?
  - UncleMeat 7y ago
    That is preferable to having only the people in a handful of swing states pick the president (who, by executive orders, tells me what to do).

marcell 7y ago

I don't know about that, specifically this part: > He/she represents the interests of the states This assumes that states in America have some sort of distinct cultural/political interests, divided along state lines. This isn't really the case. For example there are no significant cultural differences between North Dakota and South Dakota. The dividing line there is pretty arbitrary. Similarly, some places that have very significant cultural/political differences are lumped together, like the Bay Area and the Central Valley in California. Your argument would make more sense if applied to a political arrangement like the EU. Each member of the EU has a long history as a sovereign, distinct political and cultural entity. The border between, for example, Hungary and Romania is much much more significant than that between Colorado and Arizona.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
But every state does have a long history of sovereignty. Your point of view would require completely redefining what the US is as a nation.
jack_h 7y ago
I can't speak specifically to North and South Dakota, but having lived in both Arizona and Colorado I can tell you they absolutely are different places culturally and politically. Speaking to your second point, even in the EU this can be the case. Look at Wallonia and Flanders in Belgium. Spain is also a good example, Catalonia especially.
kortilla 7y ago
California and Alabama are basically the same.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Los Angeles and Birmingham? Napa and Cumberland? Yeah, pretty much. The red and blue on electoral college maps is a lie. About 40% of Californians supported Trump in 2016, and vice versa for Alabama.

hyperpape 7y ago

I think this is anachronistic. Yes, there are places where the founders suggested that there would be a conflict between large and small states. But can we point to any reasonably non-controversial case where the electoral college has acted to safeguard the "American republic"? There are two points here. First: the Supreme Court has many controversies, but also many decisions that seem very compelling in hindsight. I tend to vote for Democrats, and I'm not entirely convinced I'd disagree with the median Scalia decision (I can remember agreeing with several). It seems to fare better as an anti-majoritarian institution. Second: suppose, for the sake of argument, that you think that Trump and Bush are great examples favoring the electoral college. In both cases, the results are extremely fragile. Either candidate could've easily lost, and the electoral college was a small bit of noise in the result (some early predictions suggested Obama would win the 2012 electoral college, but lose the popular vote). The fact that a mechanism has given you results you like in two cases, by chance, is not the same as saying that it's an important constitutional safeguard.

curiousgal 7y ago

>The President doesn't represent "the people." Isn't that obvious by the fact that the electors are under no legal obligation to choose the candidate they were voted to do?