10 ms·

I've seen this pointed out, and absolutely do not see it as a problem. What's wrong with politicians paying more attention to the needs of more people? They're

I've seen this pointed out, and absolutely do not see it as a problem. What's wrong with politicians paying more attention to the needs of more people? They're going to campaign somewhere, why should they pay more attention to Cleveland, Ohio (metro area population ~2m) than Los Angeles (city population 3m, metro population over 13m)?

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
The issue is more that everyone should get attention, and removing the electoral college & going straight to popular vote will honestly erode that- as others have noted, politicians will spend more time in the highest population areas and possibly not the highest need areas.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  > everyone should get attention I’m not entirely convinced presidential candidates share this belief.
- delecti 7y ago
  They already don't spend time equally. Currently they spend time where the expected votes are closest to 50:50. Why is that preferable to going to where there are the most undecided voters, which is what would happen?
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  They'll spend more time campaigning in the areas with the most people who can be convinced to change their votes. This isn't necessarily going to be the highest population areas, as those areas tend to be solidly liberal. I don't know why the electoral college would be better at identifying high need areas than willingness to change your vote. Shouldn't people who need help be more likely to change their vote than to live in a purple state?
  - wh0knows 7y ago
    This isn't necessarily true. If a 10m pop area has a 70-30 split, it's still better to campaign there than a 5m pop area with a 50-50 split. In absolute numbers it's still 3 million supporters versus 2.5 million supporters.
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      My point is that you want to go to places where you can convince the most people to vote for you, not necessarily the places with the most people. This means you'll want to go to places with lots of undecided voters, supporters who need to be convinced to vote, and non-supporters who you think can be swayed to your side. You also want to avoid places with lots of people who will be energized by your visit to vote against you. Under your model where the goal of the campaign is to visit your supporters, you'll favor smaller cities that strongly support you over larger cities that support your opponent. A place with 5 million population that's 70-30 in your favor has 3.5 million supporters.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  Who defines need?
- dtech 7y ago
  > removing the electoral college & going straight to popular vote will honestly erode that- as others have noted, politicians will spend more time in the highest population areas and possibly not the highest need areas. So I guess you're totally OK with the current system where they spend all their time in Florida & other swing states because the others don't matter...
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    This is a false premise candidates do not ‘spend all their time in florida’
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  To be snide have they ever actually gone to the highest need areas? It has always gone towards whatever bloc will win them the most influence. The Dustbowl wasn't a major election campaign area - neighboring governors had to be told that they couldn't use the national guard to keep out US citizens at gunpoint.
brink 7y ago
> What's wrong with politicians paying more attention to the needs of more people? It may encourage the discrimination against minorities.
- delecti 7y ago
  Don't urban (and thus more dense dense) centers of population trend less white? Wouldn't it discourage discrimination against mionorities?
  - brigandish 7y ago
    "Minority" does not always mean skin colour. John Stuart Mill wrote about the tyranny of the majority[0] in 1850's England∗, which I'll hazard a guess was 99% white, even with steamboats and the British Empire reaching right around the world. ∗and he appears to refer to it as a well established idiom so I suspect it goes further back [0] On Liberty https://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html https://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      Why do you think that tyranny of the majority is a bad thing?
      - nostrademons 7y ago
        Most people are minorities in at least one aspect that they hold dear to their identity. Under tyranny of the majority, they risk finding that aspect made illegal.
        hannasanarion 7y ago
        Why do you think that tyranny of the minority is better?
        nostrademons 7y ago
exclusiv 7y ago
What's great about the electoral college is you need to have cross-regional appeal to win. So its less about which states are going to be battleground but that you generally can't just appeal to 1 or 2 regions and win. In a goal of preserving the union, it's better to have a system that pushes cross-regional appeal than a system based strictly on number of votes IMO.
- hinkley 7y ago
  My recollection from civics was that the college is to prevent populist candidates from winning. Someone very popular only in densely populated areas may have an agenda that hurts rural ones (eg, noting that federal taxes disproportionately go to rural areas for things like maintaining highways, make it “fair” and leave rural people with shit roads and diminished services).
  - gmoot 7y ago
    It was indeed intended to prevent populism; the idea is that instead of voting for the president you vote for a group of people who you trust to then choose a president. But it has never in practice worked that way.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      And in fact many states electors are not legally allowed to do that any more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
      - justin66 7y ago
        The question of whether faithless electors are allowed to be... faithless (ahem) is currently working itself through the courts, which is remarkable: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/22/he-tried-stop-trump-electoral-college-court-says-his-faithless-ballot-was-legal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/22/he-tried-st...

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago

The issue is more that everyone should get attention, and removing the electoral college & going straight to popular vote will honestly erode that- as others have noted, politicians will spend more time in the highest population areas and possibly not the highest need areas.

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
> everyone should get attention I’m not entirely convinced presidential candidates share this belief.
delecti 7y ago
They already don't spend time equally. Currently they spend time where the expected votes are closest to 50:50. Why is that preferable to going to where there are the most undecided voters, which is what would happen?
daveFNbuck 7y ago
They'll spend more time campaigning in the areas with the most people who can be convinced to change their votes. This isn't necessarily going to be the highest population areas, as those areas tend to be solidly liberal. I don't know why the electoral college would be better at identifying high need areas than willingness to change your vote. Shouldn't people who need help be more likely to change their vote than to live in a purple state?
- wh0knows 7y ago
  This isn't necessarily true. If a 10m pop area has a 70-30 split, it's still better to campaign there than a 5m pop area with a 50-50 split. In absolute numbers it's still 3 million supporters versus 2.5 million supporters.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    My point is that you want to go to places where you can convince the most people to vote for you, not necessarily the places with the most people. This means you'll want to go to places with lots of undecided voters, supporters who need to be convinced to vote, and non-supporters who you think can be swayed to your side. You also want to avoid places with lots of people who will be energized by your visit to vote against you. Under your model where the goal of the campaign is to visit your supporters, you'll favor smaller cities that strongly support you over larger cities that support your opponent. A place with 5 million population that's 70-30 in your favor has 3.5 million supporters.
quotemstr 7y ago
Who defines need?
dtech 7y ago
> removing the electoral college & going straight to popular vote will honestly erode that- as others have noted, politicians will spend more time in the highest population areas and possibly not the highest need areas. So I guess you're totally OK with the current system where they spend all their time in Florida & other swing states because the others don't matter...
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  This is a false premise candidates do not ‘spend all their time in florida’
Nasrudith 7y ago
To be snide have they ever actually gone to the highest need areas? It has always gone towards whatever bloc will win them the most influence. The Dustbowl wasn't a major election campaign area - neighboring governors had to be told that they couldn't use the national guard to keep out US citizens at gunpoint.

brink 7y ago

> What's wrong with politicians paying more attention to the needs of more people? It may encourage the discrimination against minorities.

delecti 7y ago
Don't urban (and thus more dense dense) centers of population trend less white? Wouldn't it discourage discrimination against mionorities?
- brigandish 7y ago
  "Minority" does not always mean skin colour. John Stuart Mill wrote about the tyranny of the majority[0] in 1850's England∗, which I'll hazard a guess was 99% white, even with steamboats and the British Empire reaching right around the world. ∗and he appears to refer to it as a well established idiom so I suspect it goes further back [0] On Liberty https://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html https://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Why do you think that tyranny of the majority is a bad thing?
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      Most people are minorities in at least one aspect that they hold dear to their identity. Under tyranny of the majority, they risk finding that aspect made illegal.
      - hannasanarion 7y ago
        Why do you think that tyranny of the minority is better?
        nostrademons 7y ago

exclusiv 7y ago

What's great about the electoral college is you need to have cross-regional appeal to win. So its less about which states are going to be battleground but that you generally can't just appeal to 1 or 2 regions and win. In a goal of preserving the union, it's better to have a system that pushes cross-regional appeal than a system based strictly on number of votes IMO.

hinkley 7y ago
My recollection from civics was that the college is to prevent populist candidates from winning. Someone very popular only in densely populated areas may have an agenda that hurts rural ones (eg, noting that federal taxes disproportionately go to rural areas for things like maintaining highways, make it “fair” and leave rural people with shit roads and diminished services).
- gmoot 7y ago
  It was indeed intended to prevent populism; the idea is that instead of voting for the president you vote for a group of people who you trust to then choose a president. But it has never in practice worked that way.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    And in fact many states electors are not legally allowed to do that any more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
    - justin66 7y ago
      The question of whether faithless electors are allowed to be... faithless (ahem) is currently working itself through the courts, which is remarkable: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/22/he-tried-stop-trump-electoral-college-court-says-his-faithless-ballot-was-legal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/22/he-tried-st...