4 ms·

What’s the implied harm in that, though? Given it violates the principle of “one person, one vote”, it needs justification beyond gesturing towards the idea of

What’s the implied harm in that, though? Given it violates the principle of “one person, one vote”, it needs justification beyond gesturing towards the idea of “it prevents bigger regions from bullying smaller ones”. Maybe there is a dark history that has been avoided by the EC, but it seems incomplete to just just allude to it with a vague David and Goliath analogy.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
The federal government is set up to allow minority positions to roadblock majority positions unless you have an overwhelming majority (look at basically every big social issue of the past century and you will see this is how it has played out). The purpose of this is to prevent people from moving fast and breaking things at the federal level. This is all fine so long as states have decent autonomy. CA can have all the weed and abortions they want and KY can have all the guns and christian values they want and neither has to bother the other. Unfortunately we've put of a hell of a lot of authority at the federal level over the last 120yr or so and as a result government's ability to do things is handicapped because more of the doing things necessarily has to happen at a level where the system was designed to only allow things to be done when practically nobody could disagree with them.
- dundarious 6y ago
  I agree there can exist a tyranny of the slight majority. But we’re talking about the EC, which is used to choose the President. Given the enormous power of the executive branch (relative to most parliamentary democracies, for example), this actually causes a minority to gain positive power over the majority. Positive power here meaning power to direct action through executive orders and (most importantly) military action, not merely to veto law. But the executive also enjoys some veto power! The EC and 2 senators per state system that the US uses seems to lead to a tyranny of the minority, especially if you consider that senate “rules” regarding filibustering, simple, absolute majorities are almost all conventions rather than laws or immutable procedures. However, I do agree with your line of argument as it relates to constitutional amendments. Edit: I said the executive could create law, when I meant to say they can direct action.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    The people getting shafted by the EC deal should tell their congressmen and senators to take back some of that legislate authority they've dumped on the executive bureaucracy. We're holding a knife by the blade and trying to cut with the handle and complaining it hurts. Of course it does. We're not using the tool properly. We could also massively increase the number of states which would make the two points that all states get just for existing much less relevant (and have other benefits). Even if you just look at the house the number of people represented by any given person is massive compared to what it was 100yr ago let alone when the system was designed.
    - dundarious 6y ago
      I agree to a large extent. I think EC should be part of a larger set of changes, but it is understood by a reasonable amount of the public, so it’s arguably the best starting point.
pjc50 6y ago
To what extent is the electoral college the legacy of the "three fifths compromise"?
- justin66 6y ago
  Going back in history, you wouldn't have one without the other. You can have "one man, one vote" and restrict the vote hypocritically to white landowning guys, but if you want to start weighting the votes of guys who own some of their fellow human beings higher than ordinary people, you need some kind of proxy.
rglullis 6y ago
Compare with Brazil which does have a presidential system winning by popular vote, and I bet you will see a lot of reasons to not want the federal government with even more power than it already has.
- dundarious 6y ago
  Yes, a weaker executive branch at the federal level.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    ...? Either I am failing to parse your sentence or you missed some words.
    - dundarious 6y ago
      I didn’t explain myself fully. For the US, I think a weaker executive would be good too. I don’t know much about Brazil’s political system. I know enough about Bolsonaro to dislike his positions and actions, but it seems like the coordinated conspiracy against Lula was a huge factor, https://theintercept.com/2019/06/17/brazil-sergio-moro-lula-operation-car-wash/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/17/brazil-sergio-moro-lula-.... Haven’t heard anything about first-past-the-post being an issue.
      - rglullis 6y ago
        The issue is not with "first-past-the-post", the issue is about the huge divide between North/Northeast and Southeast/South of Brazil. I'd dare say is even worse of a problem that what the US has with Coastal States vs flyover country, or North/South. The southern, richest states complain about the federal government taking out more than what is put in - which is not always true: a lot of the problems from southern states is that they can't manage their finances and are constantly asking the federal government to bail them out. The people in the poorer northern states complain about not getting money and help even though the they are the biggest beneficiaries from the Union - the problem ends up being that most of these resources are diverted and go to the pockets of the powerful families in those states. And still, every election cycle everyone gets riled up over who is running for president when it would be better for everyone to look first to their cities and states. And while it certainly would be better for everyone if we could just reduce the power concentrated in the federal level, we have no single practical provision to do that. All that people can do is to root for their dog and realize that nothing ever really changes in a positive way. Aside: Lula is no saint. Worse than that, he is the devil that fools you into believing his kind soul and uses it to rob you blind. He is the one that brought this polarization to 11 with the goal of consolidating more power. He is the one that was making the state ever bigger during a few good boom years. He talked loudly about "working for the poor" but his (and Dilma's) economic policies were favoring always a few exclusive group of an elite that was interested in keeping him in power. Cronyism was rampant. It was under his tenure that the endemic corruption became systemic: every government contract job had a kickback scheme which would fuel his party and his allies. It was no conspiracy that put Lula in jail. He was the leader of what was essentially a kleptocracy who subverted all institutions to work in his favor. And none of that would be so easy to do if the people in the states had more control over what happens in Brasilia.
mikem170 6y ago
>Given it violates the principle of “one person, one vote” I believe that the less populated states would not have joined the union without the electoral college. They may justifiably feel that it's still not in their interests to give it up. EDIT: Fun fact: technically the states elect the president, the constitution does not specify a popular vote for that office, and there doesn't need to be one.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

The federal government is set up to allow minority positions to roadblock majority positions unless you have an overwhelming majority (look at basically every big social issue of the past century and you will see this is how it has played out). The purpose of this is to prevent people from moving fast and breaking things at the federal level. This is all fine so long as states have decent autonomy. CA can have all the weed and abortions they want and KY can have all the guns and christian values they want and neither has to bother the other. Unfortunately we've put of a hell of a lot of authority at the federal level over the last 120yr or so and as a result government's ability to do things is handicapped because more of the doing things necessarily has to happen at a level where the system was designed to only allow things to be done when practically nobody could disagree with them.

dundarious 6y ago
I agree there can exist a tyranny of the slight majority. But we’re talking about the EC, which is used to choose the President. Given the enormous power of the executive branch (relative to most parliamentary democracies, for example), this actually causes a minority to gain positive power over the majority. Positive power here meaning power to direct action through executive orders and (most importantly) military action, not merely to veto law. But the executive also enjoys some veto power! The EC and 2 senators per state system that the US uses seems to lead to a tyranny of the minority, especially if you consider that senate “rules” regarding filibustering, simple, absolute majorities are almost all conventions rather than laws or immutable procedures. However, I do agree with your line of argument as it relates to constitutional amendments. Edit: I said the executive could create law, when I meant to say they can direct action.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  The people getting shafted by the EC deal should tell their congressmen and senators to take back some of that legislate authority they've dumped on the executive bureaucracy. We're holding a knife by the blade and trying to cut with the handle and complaining it hurts. Of course it does. We're not using the tool properly. We could also massively increase the number of states which would make the two points that all states get just for existing much less relevant (and have other benefits). Even if you just look at the house the number of people represented by any given person is massive compared to what it was 100yr ago let alone when the system was designed.
  - dundarious 6y ago
    I agree to a large extent. I think EC should be part of a larger set of changes, but it is understood by a reasonable amount of the public, so it’s arguably the best starting point.

pjc50 6y ago

To what extent is the electoral college the legacy of the "three fifths compromise"?

justin66 6y ago
Going back in history, you wouldn't have one without the other. You can have "one man, one vote" and restrict the vote hypocritically to white landowning guys, but if you want to start weighting the votes of guys who own some of their fellow human beings higher than ordinary people, you need some kind of proxy.

rglullis 6y ago

Compare with Brazil which does have a presidential system winning by popular vote, and I bet you will see a lot of reasons to not want the federal government with even more power than it already has.

dundarious 6y ago
Yes, a weaker executive branch at the federal level.
- rglullis 6y ago
  ...? Either I am failing to parse your sentence or you missed some words.
  - dundarious 6y ago
    I didn’t explain myself fully. For the US, I think a weaker executive would be good too. I don’t know much about Brazil’s political system. I know enough about Bolsonaro to dislike his positions and actions, but it seems like the coordinated conspiracy against Lula was a huge factor, https://theintercept.com/2019/06/17/brazil-sergio-moro-lula-operation-car-wash/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/17/brazil-sergio-moro-lula-.... Haven’t heard anything about first-past-the-post being an issue.
    - rglullis 6y ago
      The issue is not with "first-past-the-post", the issue is about the huge divide between North/Northeast and Southeast/South of Brazil. I'd dare say is even worse of a problem that what the US has with Coastal States vs flyover country, or North/South. The southern, richest states complain about the federal government taking out more than what is put in - which is not always true: a lot of the problems from southern states is that they can't manage their finances and are constantly asking the federal government to bail them out. The people in the poorer northern states complain about not getting money and help even though the they are the biggest beneficiaries from the Union - the problem ends up being that most of these resources are diverted and go to the pockets of the powerful families in those states. And still, every election cycle everyone gets riled up over who is running for president when it would be better for everyone to look first to their cities and states. And while it certainly would be better for everyone if we could just reduce the power concentrated in the federal level, we have no single practical provision to do that. All that people can do is to root for their dog and realize that nothing ever really changes in a positive way. Aside: Lula is no saint. Worse than that, he is the devil that fools you into believing his kind soul and uses it to rob you blind. He is the one that brought this polarization to 11 with the goal of consolidating more power. He is the one that was making the state ever bigger during a few good boom years. He talked loudly about "working for the poor" but his (and Dilma's) economic policies were favoring always a few exclusive group of an elite that was interested in keeping him in power. Cronyism was rampant. It was under his tenure that the endemic corruption became systemic: every government contract job had a kickback scheme which would fuel his party and his allies. It was no conspiracy that put Lula in jail. He was the leader of what was essentially a kleptocracy who subverted all institutions to work in his favor. And none of that would be so easy to do if the people in the states had more control over what happens in Brasilia.

mikem170 6y ago

>Given it violates the principle of “one person, one vote” I believe that the less populated states would not have joined the union without the electoral college. They may justifiably feel that it's still not in their interests to give it up. EDIT: Fun fact: technically the states elect the president, the constitution does not specify a popular vote for that office, and there doesn't need to be one.