5 ms·

Good case for the electoral college, localize the corruption to the state-level.

by creaghpatr 7y ago

ianai 7y ago
That system has never acted as a deliberate body. It’s merely a way to further the tyranny of the minority.
jellicle 7y ago
Can you explain more about how the electoral college is supposed to combat a state with corrupted elections?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sokoloff 7y ago
  It partitions/firewalls the impact of the fraud to an individual state. The voting power of Georgia residents may have been compromised here, but the voting power of the rest of the country was unaffected. In a popular voting system, that would not be the case (if the fraud increased reported voter turnout, seizing more voting power into the fraudulent election, for example).
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    In both situations, the election is compromised. Knowing my vote was secure in a compromised election does not provide any benefit.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      That's one way to look at it and I certainly have some sympathy for/agreement with that point of view. Another way to look at it is that each other state's Elector selection process is their business. The Constitution does not provide any assurances that other states will choose their Electors by any particular process, but instead specifically reserves that for each state's Legisature. A state would be within their rights to choose them winner-take-all, in proportion to the popular vote, or by a random draw from a Powerball machine and you and I would have no say over it (as non-residents).
      - boomboomsubban 7y ago
        >Another way to look at it is that each other state's Elector selection process is their business. Similarly, the entire election is the business of every citizen. "Their business" has a direct impact on my life, so I should have some say in the matter. >The Constitution does not provide any assurances that other states will choose their Electors by any particular process, The Constitution sets up the electoral college. That doesn't make it a good system.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        There's a process for amending the Constitution. Until that's done, this is the system we have.
save_ferris 7y ago
The electoral college is the sole reason 2 out of the last 3 presidents lost the popular vote while winning the general election. In no universe does the electoral college mitigate corruption on the federal level. In fact, one could argue that it makes corruption worse, because a candidate only has to win a few key states to tip the election, regardless of the popular vote.
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  Which countries practice direct democracy for their top executives (Presidents, PMs, etc)?
- reaperducer 7y ago
  it makes corruption worse, because a candidate only has to win a few key states to tip the election, regardless of the popular vote. The alternative is only counting the popular vote, which only serves to disenfranchise the majority of states. Without the electoral college, a candidate would only have to campaign in and win three or four large states, and the rest of the nations and its concerns can be ignored. That concern is the whole reason we have the House/Senate system: So that large states with lots of people in the House of Representatives don't run amok. The Senate balances that out.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    More specifically, a state that 'cheats' can only impact their share of electoral votes, rather than bleed into the popular count of all states' electoral votes.
  - erichurkman 7y ago
    > The alternative is only counting the popular vote, which only serves to disenfranchise the majority of states. The majority of red states are also the majority of the population, so this doesn't check out. (Trump states ~180mm to Hillary's ~140mm.)
    - cmendel 7y ago
yongjik 7y ago
I thought 2000 presidential election put an end to this kind of reasoning? The result of a national election, literally hanging on the chads of a few extremely poorly managed districts in Florida.
- toast0 7y ago
  If Florida 2000 was bad, a nationwide recount would be even worse.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    The original argument was that electoral college "localizes" statewide corruption. I pointed out it didn't. Whether a popular election is also susceptible to statewide corruption is a different matter - of course it is, but unlike electoral college, a corrupt state can never wield disproportionate power.
    - toast0 7y ago
      With the electoral college, a corrupt state can force its votes, and that can swing the election if the electoral count is close enough; if it's a large state, that's pretty likely, I suppose. With a popular vote, a corrupt state (or precinct) can manufacture votes, and if they can plausibly manufacture enough votes in a close election, that can swing the election too.

Good case for the electoral college, localize the corruption to the state-level.

ianai 7y ago

That system has never acted as a deliberate body. It’s merely a way to further the tyranny of the minority.

jellicle 7y ago

Can you explain more about how the electoral college is supposed to combat a state with corrupted elections?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sokoloff 7y ago
It partitions/firewalls the impact of the fraud to an individual state. The voting power of Georgia residents may have been compromised here, but the voting power of the rest of the country was unaffected. In a popular voting system, that would not be the case (if the fraud increased reported voter turnout, seizing more voting power into the fraudulent election, for example).
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  In both situations, the election is compromised. Knowing my vote was secure in a compromised election does not provide any benefit.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    That's one way to look at it and I certainly have some sympathy for/agreement with that point of view. Another way to look at it is that each other state's Elector selection process is their business. The Constitution does not provide any assurances that other states will choose their Electors by any particular process, but instead specifically reserves that for each state's Legisature. A state would be within their rights to choose them winner-take-all, in proportion to the popular vote, or by a random draw from a Powerball machine and you and I would have no say over it (as non-residents).
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      >Another way to look at it is that each other state's Elector selection process is their business. Similarly, the entire election is the business of every citizen. "Their business" has a direct impact on my life, so I should have some say in the matter. >The Constitution does not provide any assurances that other states will choose their Electors by any particular process, The Constitution sets up the electoral college. That doesn't make it a good system.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        There's a process for amending the Constitution. Until that's done, this is the system we have.

save_ferris 7y ago

The electoral college is the sole reason 2 out of the last 3 presidents lost the popular vote while winning the general election. In no universe does the electoral college mitigate corruption on the federal level. In fact, one could argue that it makes corruption worse, because a candidate only has to win a few key states to tip the election, regardless of the popular vote.

caseysoftware 7y ago
Which countries practice direct democracy for their top executives (Presidents, PMs, etc)?
reaperducer 7y ago
it makes corruption worse, because a candidate only has to win a few key states to tip the election, regardless of the popular vote. The alternative is only counting the popular vote, which only serves to disenfranchise the majority of states. Without the electoral college, a candidate would only have to campaign in and win three or four large states, and the rest of the nations and its concerns can be ignored. That concern is the whole reason we have the House/Senate system: So that large states with lots of people in the House of Representatives don't run amok. The Senate balances that out.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  More specifically, a state that 'cheats' can only impact their share of electoral votes, rather than bleed into the popular count of all states' electoral votes.
- erichurkman 7y ago
  > The alternative is only counting the popular vote, which only serves to disenfranchise the majority of states. The majority of red states are also the majority of the population, so this doesn't check out. (Trump states ~180mm to Hillary's ~140mm.)
  - cmendel 7y ago

yongjik 7y ago

I thought 2000 presidential election put an end to this kind of reasoning? The result of a national election, literally hanging on the chads of a few extremely poorly managed districts in Florida.

toast0 7y ago
If Florida 2000 was bad, a nationwide recount would be even worse.
- yongjik 7y ago
  The original argument was that electoral college "localizes" statewide corruption. I pointed out it didn't. Whether a popular election is also susceptible to statewide corruption is a different matter - of course it is, but unlike electoral college, a corrupt state can never wield disproportionate power.
  - toast0 7y ago
    With the electoral college, a corrupt state can force its votes, and that can swing the election if the electoral count is close enough; if it's a large state, that's pretty likely, I suppose. With a popular vote, a corrupt state (or precinct) can manufacture votes, and if they can plausibly manufacture enough votes in a close election, that can swing the election too.