6 ms·

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, seri

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?
        IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
        You just made his point. The balance of power is working precisely because the legislative is very much majority rule. As such, if the executive did away without the electoral college, it would also overrepresent populous, majority populations. By doing away with the electoral college , you literally destroy whatever is left of the Republic
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).

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?
      - IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
        You just made his point. The balance of power is working precisely because the legislative is very much majority rule. As such, if the executive did away without the electoral college, it would also overrepresent populous, majority populations. By doing away with the electoral college , you literally destroy whatever is left of the Republic

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).