8 ms·

Are you implying that each Californian should count for less than one vote?

jessedhillon 6y ago
Your (implied) counterproposal is not neutral either: you are suggesting that rurals and suburbans should be ruled by young type-As who are willing to pack themselves into tiny, overpriced apartments and make their careers a top priority well into their middle age. Why should that culture dominate? > Are you implying that each Californian should count for less than one vote? In a federalist republic, yes that's exactly what that means. The country was deliberately designed as a collection of independent states, and not a single population whose diversity is merely geographic.
- jopsen 6y ago
  > The country was deliberately designed as a collection of independent states, Hmm... Couldn't it be argued that this haven't really been the case since the civil war? When I lived in SF, most Americans I met weren't originally from California (not had they lived there long).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- hirsin 6y ago
  You're making the implicit assumption that more of those people exist than the rural and suburban types, in which case... Yes? Your comment cuts both ways - one of those groups is going to be the dominant culture and if your argument is that the smaller one should win, I don't see the reasoning to back it up.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    The electoral college moderates the effect. The big states still dominate. Just not as completely. The small states have their voice instead of being completely irrelevant. It's not that they "win" or even have an equal say.
  - newen 6y ago
    The coastal city culture is already dominant in all types of media and academia and large corporations.
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    It's not about winning. The original motivation for the US's structure is to impede lawmaking at the highest levels unless absolutely necessary. Making laws is not making progress.
  - jessedhillon 6y ago
    You've assumed that everyone agreed at some point on majoritarianism, which never happened.
smabie 6y ago
No one is implying that, that's how it works and is intended to work.
- mattmanser 6y ago
  It's a historical quirk rather than intention. No sane democracy would have the electoral college system today.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    I agree with your last sentence, but this is very clearly the intention. Small states threw a fit when they were writing the constitution so now we're stuck with this bullshit.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      That’s not strictly true; the original intention was for slaveholding states to have a roughly equal voice in presidential elections without letting slaves vote. Smaller states threw a fit about counting slaves as full citizens for the purposes of representation, which is how we arrived at the Three-Fifths Compromise.
      - colinmhayes 6y ago
        I'm talking about Connecticut compromise, which created the electoral college, not the 3/5 compromise.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        The Connecticut Compromise created the Senate, not the electoral college. The explicit purpose of the electoral college was to give more power to slaveholding states without enfranchising slaves. The Three-Fifths Compromise is intrinsically related to the electoral college, because it instructed how to count slaves when determining how many House seats a state would get.
beaner 6y ago
Open minded question: Maybe yes? If states don't have an ability to have a voice for themselves as states, what's the point of them at all? They gain this small but important nudge towards autonomy from the electoral college.
- sidibe 6y ago
  I think states already get that enough through the senate. I really think the president should be by popular vote, but don't see any way this would ever get changed.
  - mattst88 6y ago
    In case you're not aware of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...), take a look. It's doable.
  - beaner 6y ago
    The senate is one mechanism, but its mere existence is not reason enough to consider it sufficient.
  - Tuna-Fish 6y ago
    The NPVIC[0] is actually inching closer and closer to being in force. It will still take a long time, but I see it actually possibly working eventually. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
    - beaner 6y ago
      IMO, states choosing to enter an agreement like this of their own free will, is the appropriate way to get a popular vote, if that's what the people want, while still retaining the right of the electoral college. I personally disagree with a state choosing to sacrifice its voice in such a way, but it's its right to do so, to award its votes how it sees fit.

Your (implied) counterproposal is not neutral either: you are suggesting that rurals and suburbans should be ruled by young type-As who are willing to pack themselves into tiny, overpriced apartments and make their careers a top priority well into their middle age. Why should that culture dominate? > Are you implying that each Californian should count for less than one vote? In a federalist republic, yes that's exactly what that means. The country was deliberately designed as a collection of independent states, and not a single population whose diversity is merely geographic.

jopsen 6y ago
> The country was deliberately designed as a collection of independent states, Hmm... Couldn't it be argued that this haven't really been the case since the civil war? When I lived in SF, most Americans I met weren't originally from California (not had they lived there long).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
hirsin 6y ago
You're making the implicit assumption that more of those people exist than the rural and suburban types, in which case... Yes? Your comment cuts both ways - one of those groups is going to be the dominant culture and if your argument is that the smaller one should win, I don't see the reasoning to back it up.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  The electoral college moderates the effect. The big states still dominate. Just not as completely. The small states have their voice instead of being completely irrelevant. It's not that they "win" or even have an equal say.
- newen 6y ago
  The coastal city culture is already dominant in all types of media and academia and large corporations.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  It's not about winning. The original motivation for the US's structure is to impede lawmaking at the highest levels unless absolutely necessary. Making laws is not making progress.
- jessedhillon 6y ago
  You've assumed that everyone agreed at some point on majoritarianism, which never happened.

smabie 6y ago

No one is implying that, that's how it works and is intended to work.

mattmanser 6y ago
It's a historical quirk rather than intention. No sane democracy would have the electoral college system today.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  I agree with your last sentence, but this is very clearly the intention. Small states threw a fit when they were writing the constitution so now we're stuck with this bullshit.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    That’s not strictly true; the original intention was for slaveholding states to have a roughly equal voice in presidential elections without letting slaves vote. Smaller states threw a fit about counting slaves as full citizens for the purposes of representation, which is how we arrived at the Three-Fifths Compromise.
    - colinmhayes 6y ago
      I'm talking about Connecticut compromise, which created the electoral college, not the 3/5 compromise.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        The Connecticut Compromise created the Senate, not the electoral college. The explicit purpose of the electoral college was to give more power to slaveholding states without enfranchising slaves. The Three-Fifths Compromise is intrinsically related to the electoral college, because it instructed how to count slaves when determining how many House seats a state would get.

beaner 6y ago

Open minded question: Maybe yes? If states don't have an ability to have a voice for themselves as states, what's the point of them at all? They gain this small but important nudge towards autonomy from the electoral college.

sidibe 6y ago
I think states already get that enough through the senate. I really think the president should be by popular vote, but don't see any way this would ever get changed.
- mattst88 6y ago
  In case you're not aware of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...), take a look. It's doable.
- beaner 6y ago
  The senate is one mechanism, but its mere existence is not reason enough to consider it sufficient.
- Tuna-Fish 6y ago
  The NPVIC[0] is actually inching closer and closer to being in force. It will still take a long time, but I see it actually possibly working eventually. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
  - beaner 6y ago
    IMO, states choosing to enter an agreement like this of their own free will, is the appropriate way to get a popular vote, if that's what the people want, while still retaining the right of the electoral college. I personally disagree with a state choosing to sacrifice its voice in such a way, but it's its right to do so, to award its votes how it sees fit.