6 ms·

The fight against the electoral college is one of those things that misses the forest for the trees. The real problem is that too much power has been vested in

The fight against the electoral college is one of those things that misses the forest for the trees. The real problem is that too much power has been vested in the federal government (and in the executive branch specifically), and too much power has been taken from the states. People would care a lot less about how the president gets elected if he didn't have so much control over the entire country.

HeavenFox 6y ago
I agree with you; in practice, however, when Alabama enacts anti-abortion law New Yorkers get pissed; when New Jersey enacts anti-gun law Texans get pissed. Everyone want to push their favorite ideology nationwide and the federal government grows as a result.
- gizmo686 6y ago
  More practically, states have open borders. In the world where the constitution was written, this was not as big of a deal. However, improvement to transportation technology mean that it has become increasingly possible to circumvent one states laws by traveling to another state. Hence, any law a state may want to make legitimatly becomes an issue of interstate commerce, which is nessasarily a federal concern [0]. For instance, when Alabama enacts their anti-abortion law, they could have a legitamite grievence that their residents can hop in a car and spend a weekend taking a road trip up to New York (assuming every closer state passes a simmilar law) and get their abortion there. Or, when New Jersey passes their anti-gun law, they can get pissed that their citizens can go to Texas to buy guns and take them back to New Jersey. We (arguably) fought a civil war over this issue. States had different laws with regards to slavery. The southern states were upset that their laws on slavery were being undermined by the ability of slaves to travel to northern states which would than grant their freedom. A compromise was struck were federal law (the fugitive slave act) would require northern states to honor the slave laws of southern states and return slaves. Some northern states asserted their states rights to not follow this law; thereby continuing to allow slaves freedom once they crossed the border. We may have had a civil war regardless; but if the northern states weren't able to directly undermine the slavery laws of the southern states, it may not have reached that point. [0] Although, even with modern transportation technology, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) takes a very broad view of what constitutes interstate commerce.
  - nradov 6y ago
    There's nothing wrong or unexpected about people circumventing laws in one state by traveling to another state. Interstate travel was already quite common when the Constitution was written so nothing has really changed.
arthens 6y ago
What a weird take. The idea that America could keep the same broken and easy to manipulate electoral system if only the president had less power is ridiculous. The election process is worth fixing no matter how powerful or not powerful the elected official is. Stop pushing your small government agenda on HN.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  >Stop pushing your small government agenda on HN. Then tell OP to keep their anti-electoral college agenda off of HN The EC isn't inherently broken, most critiques of it miss the point that it was explicitly designed so that the states, and not the people, elect the president. Representatives were the only federal office holders intended to be directly elected by the people
  - arthens 6y ago
    > Then tell OP to keep their anti-electoral college agenda off of HN Discussing a better electoral system is not inherently partisan. Any electoral reform that ends up with America still having to pick between Republicans and Democrats would be a failure in my books. America needs a better electoral system so that it can finally move on from a 2 party system and move towards better representation. > The EC isn't inherently broken, most critiques of it miss the point that it was explicitly designed so that the states, and not the people, elect the president Do you think that's something worth keeping? Honest question.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    But that means it is inherently broken in today's USA. Firstly, federal law is clearly very powerful and applies everywhere regardless of states. Secondly, the difference between a state and it's neighbours is basically nil in today's America. The president should be elected by the people. The executive branch is too enormous to be elected (in effect) by such a small percentage of votes cast.
gremlinsinc 6y ago
I fully agree with this statement. Jefferson's vision of America was the better one, where the federal is weak and the states are what people are most loyal to, and which hold the most power over people's daily lives. I want to see universal healthcare, but I think if state's taxes were higher than federal, and they were required to come up with a plan that covers everyone, however they want to do that, that it would make more sense for everybody.
- s5300 6y ago
  Serious question - how do you think this applies to states that have historically, and recently, discriminated against race, relationships, abortion, and blurred the lines between not separating church & state (as IIRC, the way things were supposed to be)? It's not really a speculation, more of a fact, that if some higher power doesn't make them be what many see as humane/practice equality, then... they just wouldn't. If they don't, other states might have major issue with them... which isn't good for the prosperity of the nation.
  - SiVal 6y ago
    Serious answer: it is hardly a given that a "higher power" will favor your idea of "good" over your idea of "bad". Or even if it does, that it will always continue to do so and will always continue to enforce your preferences, even if your preferences someday change. All that a higher power will enforce is uniformity, which could just as easily be (or later become) uniformly bad for you as uniformly good for you. Without the enforcement of uniformity, you might still have the option of choosing for yourself by moving elsewhere instead of having the choice imposed on you wherever you go.
    - s5300 6y ago
      I just don't understand having "United" states at that point. In your vision... which I'm not arguing for or against - I can't fathom a reason in which we don't just break up into countries. As it stands, the states with the highest levels of education and economic output in the U.S. truly do tend to prop up the states with the lowest levels of education and output. However, the states being propped up also seem to actively disagree and attempt to impose their own preferences onto the very states that prop them up. There's no logical reason to not just be your own country at that point. Maybe even then going on to steamroll over the arguably weaker countries for their natural resources, as humanity has throughout most of history. I don't care about favoring my idea of good or bad. The education mandated by nearly all states and the fed government has been teaching all students about equality and a standard level of defined human decency that should be seen to ensure a prosperous nation. The imposed curriculum showed us other variants of government that didn't include these basics leading to failed states/failed other forms of government throughout the centuries. However, even though this is what was mandated to be taught to us, we're growing up and being thrown into a system in which we see what we were forcibly taught in the mandated gov education system... simply isn't applied in some places. Whether or not this is "good" or "bad" - they forcibly taught us this... so it think there's a general consensus of surprised pikachu face to be had as to why things are different. I personally think we're to far accelerated towards great filtering ourselves either way, to be honest. Very pessimistic view point, I know. Aside from that - the majority of the U.S. population cannot just decide to move elsewhere. Therein lies the issue. If we grow up being taught that we're a United nation, though for some reason something is legal/enforced in one place and not in the other despite being under the same "Unity" - and we don't even have the choice to go to the place we would personally prefer... Where is the incentive to care much about anything? Any when there's no incentive to care much about anything... how well does the prosperity of the nation fare?
dfischer 6y ago
Yes. Is there a word or concept for this to a majority of issues in the zeitgeist? Dilution of choices into illusion of choice that is manipulating the masses? The removal of critical thinking? The lack of conversations taking into account 2nd order effects or first principles? Yeesh.
ultramundane8 6y ago
I think you're right about the outrage that the electoral college gets, but not its actual faults. To be sure, it's silly to oppose the electoral college due to personal political leanings. But arguably, the president wouldn't wield so much power were she more representatively elected. I guess my objection is just that there's a clear feedback loop in power structures, and better representation is one of many avenues available to slow that.
- aahortwwy 6y ago
  It's not obvious that deleting the electoral college would cause US presidential elections to have more representative results. Firstly, US presidential election results are largely determined by turnout and switching from an electoral college to a single, winner-take-all bloc wouldn't change that underlying reality. Secondly, even if you accept that "most votes wins" produces representative election results, it turns out that there are all kinds of wacky situations that can emerge in seemingly simple voting systems based on that idea. Finally, there's a very strong argument to be made that "most votes wins" results in significant minorites being perenially underrepresented, increasingly ignored, and then ultimately disenfranchised.
  - ultramundane8 6y ago
    "More representationally elected" does NOT equate to any of the absolute garbage you are assuming are my views. Please respond to actual comments rather than your vivid imagination. I mean, seriously, try to find evidence of your response in my comment. Please, try your best. This is why there is no more "good faith."
    - aahortwwy 6y ago
      Right back at you.
      - ultramundane8 6y ago
        Literally your entire comment is based on the assumption that I advocated "a single, winner-take-all-bloc." Elementary reading comprehension in all its scarcity reveals that I never said that. What is your point exactly?
compycom 6y ago
I disagree. Consider our inability to coordinate a proper pandemic response, or the current smoke catastrophe spanning the west coast. The problems facing our country are increasingly national in scope, and require coordinated responses at the federal level. I believe our entrenched commitment to federalism and state's rights is going to hold us back more and more in the years ahead.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Why do you think pandemic response or wildfire are national in scope? Both can be handled at the state level. For example California, Oregon, and a Washington could perform necessary controlled burning (https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-california-looks-to-what-tribes-have-known-all-along https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-...) or harvest trees on a timely basis (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-million-dead-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-m...), or at least stay in target with even their existing forest management target, which they haven’t (https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop-wildland-fires-forestry-not-climate-policy-is-the-priority https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop...). Whatever states cannot accomplish on their own, they can certainly invest in - whether it is purchasing PPE or hiring loggers.
  - s5300 6y ago
    Well, in this specific case, the majority of the forestry in California is owned by the Fed.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Could the state be allowed to close its borders to other states in the case of Covid?
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      They already have this power to an extent. Hawaii for example requires visitors to self quarantine for two weeks upon arrival and arrests violators.
r0s 6y ago
Why should states have more power?
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  Depends on what you mean by "should." As far as legal, historical, and constitutional reasons go, the original idea of the US was sovereign states under a limited federal government. The federal government inherently had no power except that explicitly granted to it by the constitution. Several part of the constitution (most notably the commerce clause) have been stretched far beyond their original meaning and purpose to make the federal government far more powerful than the states. As far as moral reasons go, I've personally always been of the opinion that government should be as close to the people as possible. National governments (and international ones like the UN and EU) make it almost impossible to truly hold elected officials accountable.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Do you know the history of “states rights” in the south?
    - username90 6y ago
      Federally guaranteeing human rights and federally levying significant taxes are two very different things.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        The right to tax is also in the constitution....
  - r0s 6y ago
    > the original idea of the US was sovereign states under a limited federal government That's history, but not reasoning. The constitution adapts to the people's needs, I don't believe we've gone down the "wrong" path, but either way the constitution is neutral towards the debate.
cmurf 6y ago
We've already had that constitution. It was the first one, the Articles of Confederation.
hakfoo 6y ago
I tend to not want to re-vest any power to the states for a couple reasons: 1. The Peter Principle seems to be in action in government-- the guys who are too insane, too openly crooked, to incompetent to get into the federal government, seem to be welcomed into our state houses. 2. It encourages arbitrage and race-to-the-bottom on regulatory and economic issues. I'm sure we have states bidding against each other to attract economic boons, even with their limited current tools. If you denationalized OSHA or minimum-wage standards, the future is obvious.
platz 6y ago
If we had it your way, the surplus states would be fine but the deficit states would crash. That's why when there's a new military contract they often build it in a deficit region, balancing the surplus out. The reason why the the states are "united" is so that the region as a whole is better off than just a few states that do well.
dariusj18 6y ago
I believe it is a consequence of the 17th amendment, direct election of U.S. Senators took the people's eye off their own local and state governments. At the time it may have seemed like a good idea to battle corruption, however I don't think they chose the correct solution.

HeavenFox 6y ago

I agree with you; in practice, however, when Alabama enacts anti-abortion law New Yorkers get pissed; when New Jersey enacts anti-gun law Texans get pissed. Everyone want to push their favorite ideology nationwide and the federal government grows as a result.

gizmo686 6y ago
More practically, states have open borders. In the world where the constitution was written, this was not as big of a deal. However, improvement to transportation technology mean that it has become increasingly possible to circumvent one states laws by traveling to another state. Hence, any law a state may want to make legitimatly becomes an issue of interstate commerce, which is nessasarily a federal concern [0]. For instance, when Alabama enacts their anti-abortion law, they could have a legitamite grievence that their residents can hop in a car and spend a weekend taking a road trip up to New York (assuming every closer state passes a simmilar law) and get their abortion there. Or, when New Jersey passes their anti-gun law, they can get pissed that their citizens can go to Texas to buy guns and take them back to New Jersey. We (arguably) fought a civil war over this issue. States had different laws with regards to slavery. The southern states were upset that their laws on slavery were being undermined by the ability of slaves to travel to northern states which would than grant their freedom. A compromise was struck were federal law (the fugitive slave act) would require northern states to honor the slave laws of southern states and return slaves. Some northern states asserted their states rights to not follow this law; thereby continuing to allow slaves freedom once they crossed the border. We may have had a civil war regardless; but if the northern states weren't able to directly undermine the slavery laws of the southern states, it may not have reached that point. [0] Although, even with modern transportation technology, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) takes a very broad view of what constitutes interstate commerce.
- nradov 6y ago
  There's nothing wrong or unexpected about people circumventing laws in one state by traveling to another state. Interstate travel was already quite common when the Constitution was written so nothing has really changed.

arthens 6y ago

What a weird take. The idea that America could keep the same broken and easy to manipulate electoral system if only the president had less power is ridiculous. The election process is worth fixing no matter how powerful or not powerful the elected official is. Stop pushing your small government agenda on HN.

HideousKojima 6y ago
>Stop pushing your small government agenda on HN. Then tell OP to keep their anti-electoral college agenda off of HN The EC isn't inherently broken, most critiques of it miss the point that it was explicitly designed so that the states, and not the people, elect the president. Representatives were the only federal office holders intended to be directly elected by the people
- arthens 6y ago
  > Then tell OP to keep their anti-electoral college agenda off of HN Discussing a better electoral system is not inherently partisan. Any electoral reform that ends up with America still having to pick between Republicans and Democrats would be a failure in my books. America needs a better electoral system so that it can finally move on from a 2 party system and move towards better representation. > The EC isn't inherently broken, most critiques of it miss the point that it was explicitly designed so that the states, and not the people, elect the president Do you think that's something worth keeping? Honest question.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  But that means it is inherently broken in today's USA. Firstly, federal law is clearly very powerful and applies everywhere regardless of states. Secondly, the difference between a state and it's neighbours is basically nil in today's America. The president should be elected by the people. The executive branch is too enormous to be elected (in effect) by such a small percentage of votes cast.

gremlinsinc 6y ago

I fully agree with this statement. Jefferson's vision of America was the better one, where the federal is weak and the states are what people are most loyal to, and which hold the most power over people's daily lives. I want to see universal healthcare, but I think if state's taxes were higher than federal, and they were required to come up with a plan that covers everyone, however they want to do that, that it would make more sense for everybody.

s5300 6y ago
Serious question - how do you think this applies to states that have historically, and recently, discriminated against race, relationships, abortion, and blurred the lines between not separating church & state (as IIRC, the way things were supposed to be)? It's not really a speculation, more of a fact, that if some higher power doesn't make them be what many see as humane/practice equality, then... they just wouldn't. If they don't, other states might have major issue with them... which isn't good for the prosperity of the nation.
- SiVal 6y ago
  Serious answer: it is hardly a given that a "higher power" will favor your idea of "good" over your idea of "bad". Or even if it does, that it will always continue to do so and will always continue to enforce your preferences, even if your preferences someday change. All that a higher power will enforce is uniformity, which could just as easily be (or later become) uniformly bad for you as uniformly good for you. Without the enforcement of uniformity, you might still have the option of choosing for yourself by moving elsewhere instead of having the choice imposed on you wherever you go.
  - s5300 6y ago
    I just don't understand having "United" states at that point. In your vision... which I'm not arguing for or against - I can't fathom a reason in which we don't just break up into countries. As it stands, the states with the highest levels of education and economic output in the U.S. truly do tend to prop up the states with the lowest levels of education and output. However, the states being propped up also seem to actively disagree and attempt to impose their own preferences onto the very states that prop them up. There's no logical reason to not just be your own country at that point. Maybe even then going on to steamroll over the arguably weaker countries for their natural resources, as humanity has throughout most of history. I don't care about favoring my idea of good or bad. The education mandated by nearly all states and the fed government has been teaching all students about equality and a standard level of defined human decency that should be seen to ensure a prosperous nation. The imposed curriculum showed us other variants of government that didn't include these basics leading to failed states/failed other forms of government throughout the centuries. However, even though this is what was mandated to be taught to us, we're growing up and being thrown into a system in which we see what we were forcibly taught in the mandated gov education system... simply isn't applied in some places. Whether or not this is "good" or "bad" - they forcibly taught us this... so it think there's a general consensus of surprised pikachu face to be had as to why things are different. I personally think we're to far accelerated towards great filtering ourselves either way, to be honest. Very pessimistic view point, I know. Aside from that - the majority of the U.S. population cannot just decide to move elsewhere. Therein lies the issue. If we grow up being taught that we're a United nation, though for some reason something is legal/enforced in one place and not in the other despite being under the same "Unity" - and we don't even have the choice to go to the place we would personally prefer... Where is the incentive to care much about anything? Any when there's no incentive to care much about anything... how well does the prosperity of the nation fare?

dfischer 6y ago

Yes. Is there a word or concept for this to a majority of issues in the zeitgeist? Dilution of choices into illusion of choice that is manipulating the masses? The removal of critical thinking? The lack of conversations taking into account 2nd order effects or first principles? Yeesh.

ultramundane8 6y ago

I think you're right about the outrage that the electoral college gets, but not its actual faults. To be sure, it's silly to oppose the electoral college due to personal political leanings. But arguably, the president wouldn't wield so much power were she more representatively elected. I guess my objection is just that there's a clear feedback loop in power structures, and better representation is one of many avenues available to slow that.

aahortwwy 6y ago
It's not obvious that deleting the electoral college would cause US presidential elections to have more representative results. Firstly, US presidential election results are largely determined by turnout and switching from an electoral college to a single, winner-take-all bloc wouldn't change that underlying reality. Secondly, even if you accept that "most votes wins" produces representative election results, it turns out that there are all kinds of wacky situations that can emerge in seemingly simple voting systems based on that idea. Finally, there's a very strong argument to be made that "most votes wins" results in significant minorites being perenially underrepresented, increasingly ignored, and then ultimately disenfranchised.
- ultramundane8 6y ago
  "More representationally elected" does NOT equate to any of the absolute garbage you are assuming are my views. Please respond to actual comments rather than your vivid imagination. I mean, seriously, try to find evidence of your response in my comment. Please, try your best. This is why there is no more "good faith."
  - aahortwwy 6y ago
    Right back at you.
    - ultramundane8 6y ago
      Literally your entire comment is based on the assumption that I advocated "a single, winner-take-all-bloc." Elementary reading comprehension in all its scarcity reveals that I never said that. What is your point exactly?

compycom 6y ago

I disagree. Consider our inability to coordinate a proper pandemic response, or the current smoke catastrophe spanning the west coast. The problems facing our country are increasingly national in scope, and require coordinated responses at the federal level. I believe our entrenched commitment to federalism and state's rights is going to hold us back more and more in the years ahead.

throwawaysea 6y ago
Why do you think pandemic response or wildfire are national in scope? Both can be handled at the state level. For example California, Oregon, and a Washington could perform necessary controlled burning (https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-california-looks-to-what-tribes-have-known-all-along https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-...) or harvest trees on a timely basis (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-million-dead-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-m...), or at least stay in target with even their existing forest management target, which they haven’t (https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop-wildland-fires-forestry-not-climate-policy-is-the-priority https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop...). Whatever states cannot accomplish on their own, they can certainly invest in - whether it is purchasing PPE or hiring loggers.
- s5300 6y ago
  Well, in this specific case, the majority of the forestry in California is owned by the Fed.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Could the state be allowed to close its borders to other states in the case of Covid?
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    They already have this power to an extent. Hawaii for example requires visitors to self quarantine for two weeks upon arrival and arrests violators.

r0s 6y ago

Why should states have more power?

HideousKojima 6y ago
Depends on what you mean by "should." As far as legal, historical, and constitutional reasons go, the original idea of the US was sovereign states under a limited federal government. The federal government inherently had no power except that explicitly granted to it by the constitution. Several part of the constitution (most notably the commerce clause) have been stretched far beyond their original meaning and purpose to make the federal government far more powerful than the states. As far as moral reasons go, I've personally always been of the opinion that government should be as close to the people as possible. National governments (and international ones like the UN and EU) make it almost impossible to truly hold elected officials accountable.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- scarface74 6y ago
  Do you know the history of “states rights” in the south?
  - username90 6y ago
    Federally guaranteeing human rights and federally levying significant taxes are two very different things.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      The right to tax is also in the constitution....
- r0s 6y ago
  > the original idea of the US was sovereign states under a limited federal government That's history, but not reasoning. The constitution adapts to the people's needs, I don't believe we've gone down the "wrong" path, but either way the constitution is neutral towards the debate.

cmurf 6y ago

We've already had that constitution. It was the first one, the Articles of Confederation.

hakfoo 6y ago

I tend to not want to re-vest any power to the states for a couple reasons: 1. The Peter Principle seems to be in action in government-- the guys who are too insane, too openly crooked, to incompetent to get into the federal government, seem to be welcomed into our state houses. 2. It encourages arbitrage and race-to-the-bottom on regulatory and economic issues. I'm sure we have states bidding against each other to attract economic boons, even with their limited current tools. If you denationalized OSHA or minimum-wage standards, the future is obvious.

platz 6y ago

If we had it your way, the surplus states would be fine but the deficit states would crash. That's why when there's a new military contract they often build it in a deficit region, balancing the surplus out. The reason why the the states are "united" is so that the region as a whole is better off than just a few states that do well.

dariusj18 6y ago

I believe it is a consequence of the 17th amendment, direct election of U.S. Senators took the people's eye off their own local and state governments. At the time it may have seemed like a good idea to battle corruption, however I don't think they chose the correct solution.