5 ms·

>The fundamental problem of the electoral college is that the states of the United States are too disparate in size and influence. No, that is the problem that

>The fundamental problem of the electoral college is that the states of the United States are too disparate in size and influence. No, that is the problem that the electoral college solves. In any federation you must curb the power of the most powerful and boost the weakest for it to work. Instead of blaming with the institutions that are working as intended, start the dialog to convert the US from federation to something else.

adamnemecek 7y ago
> In any federation you must curb the power of the most powerful and boost the weakest for it to work. This is a very Americocentric view. There is in fact no such requirement in general. The US in particular has a problem of being pulled by some small, fringe groups.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  That statement is a corollary to “A federation must make some attempt to treat its members as equals.” While not necessarily true, deviating too far from it starts to stretch the definition of a federation.
- kortilla 7y ago
  > This is a very Americocentric view. Well it’s how the European Union works as well. Think of each US state as an individual State in the EU of that helps you understand it.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  Do you have any examples of federations that don't work that way, i.e., that have purely proportional representation of all the constituent entities?
  - satori99 7y ago
    Australia uses a highly proportional electoral process for its lower house. The constitution requires that electorates be apportioned among the states in proportion to their respective populations; provided that each original state has at least 5 members in the House of Representatives. Districts are decided and managed by a politically independent federal commission (ie: not by politicians). The Australian senate is still a state house modelled in the US fashion. And is therefore not proportional to the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_Australian_House_of_Representatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_Australian_Ho...
peter_retief 7y ago
Very important point. Democracy can destroy the Republic, the law must always be above the will of the masses. Electoral college is key to preserving the freedoms individuals enjoy. Whats wrong with a Federation?
- peter_retief 7y ago
  I wonder if people understand how powerful the American Constitution is? Pure Democracies is essentially mob rule and has been tried and failed since ancient times
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    There are many countries that are not federations and are functioning fine, in practice. (E.g.: France, UK, Japan, many others...)
    - ReptileMan 7y ago
      UK is not functioning quite well at the moment. And is something of a federation IIRC.
      - umanwizard 7y ago
        The UK is functioning okay, actually. Not being able to agree on what Brexit means is quite a minor problem by world standards. It doesn't change the fact that the UK is a highly developed country both in terms of GDP and HDI, has excellent infrastructure, plenty of food, etc. And the UK is not a federation, at all. The central Parliament in London wields all power and the devolved legislatures (in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) only have whatever authority the central state chooses to allow them to.
    - peter_retief 7y ago
      Sure, there are but in larger countries federations might make more sense.
  - 7y ago
the_why_of_y 7y ago
The problem that the Electoral College solves is that the constitution guaranteed the slave holding states that their political influence at the federal level would take into account the number of people they enslaved. For the legislative branch, this was done by counting a slave as 3/5 of a person for allocating seats in the House of Representatives. For the executive branch, there is only one president, and of course the slaves did not have the right to vote themselves, so an indirection was needed, i.e., the Electoral College. https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/# https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
- TMWNN 7y ago
  The Electoral College's intention was to balance large states' power with small states' desire to not let large states run everything. The college had nothing to do with slavery or the Three Fifths Compromise. Slave states gained more power in the Electoral College from the extra 3/5 votes, but a) the compromise itself had nothing to do with the Electoral College's creation or design, and b) 3/5 of a vote gave less power to slave states than their preference, a full vote for each slave.
kohler 7y ago
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.” In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted. "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001). Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Hey, everyone is wrong sometimes. Romney was a designated loser between two "global gov" sponsored candidates. Like Jeb!

adamnemecek 7y ago

> In any federation you must curb the power of the most powerful and boost the weakest for it to work. This is a very Americocentric view. There is in fact no such requirement in general. The US in particular has a problem of being pulled by some small, fringe groups.

kd5bjo 7y ago
That statement is a corollary to “A federation must make some attempt to treat its members as equals.” While not necessarily true, deviating too far from it starts to stretch the definition of a federation.
kortilla 7y ago
> This is a very Americocentric view. Well it’s how the European Union works as well. Think of each US state as an individual State in the EU of that helps you understand it.
umanwizard 7y ago
Do you have any examples of federations that don't work that way, i.e., that have purely proportional representation of all the constituent entities?
- satori99 7y ago
  Australia uses a highly proportional electoral process for its lower house. The constitution requires that electorates be apportioned among the states in proportion to their respective populations; provided that each original state has at least 5 members in the House of Representatives. Districts are decided and managed by a politically independent federal commission (ie: not by politicians). The Australian senate is still a state house modelled in the US fashion. And is therefore not proportional to the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_Australian_House_of_Representatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_Australian_Ho...

peter_retief 7y ago

Very important point. Democracy can destroy the Republic, the law must always be above the will of the masses. Electoral college is key to preserving the freedoms individuals enjoy. Whats wrong with a Federation?

peter_retief 7y ago
I wonder if people understand how powerful the American Constitution is? Pure Democracies is essentially mob rule and has been tried and failed since ancient times
- umanwizard 7y ago
  There are many countries that are not federations and are functioning fine, in practice. (E.g.: France, UK, Japan, many others...)
  - ReptileMan 7y ago
    UK is not functioning quite well at the moment. And is something of a federation IIRC.
    - umanwizard 7y ago
      The UK is functioning okay, actually. Not being able to agree on what Brexit means is quite a minor problem by world standards. It doesn't change the fact that the UK is a highly developed country both in terms of GDP and HDI, has excellent infrastructure, plenty of food, etc. And the UK is not a federation, at all. The central Parliament in London wields all power and the devolved legislatures (in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) only have whatever authority the central state chooses to allow them to.
  - peter_retief 7y ago
    Sure, there are but in larger countries federations might make more sense.
- 7y ago

the_why_of_y 7y ago

The problem that the Electoral College solves is that the constitution guaranteed the slave holding states that their political influence at the federal level would take into account the number of people they enslaved. For the legislative branch, this was done by counting a slave as 3/5 of a person for allocating seats in the House of Representatives. For the executive branch, there is only one president, and of course the slaves did not have the right to vote themselves, so an indirection was needed, i.e., the Electoral College. https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/# https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

TMWNN 7y ago
The Electoral College's intention was to balance large states' power with small states' desire to not let large states run everything. The college had nothing to do with slavery or the Three Fifths Compromise. Slave states gained more power in the Electoral College from the extra 3/5 votes, but a) the compromise itself had nothing to do with the Electoral College's creation or design, and b) 3/5 of a vote gave less power to slave states than their preference, a full vote for each slave.

kohler 7y ago

Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.” In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted. "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001). Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

jakeogh 7y ago
Hey, everyone is wrong sometimes. Romney was a designated loser between two "global gov" sponsored candidates. Like Jeb!