11 ms·

Am I the only centre-left type person in the world who thinks the Electoral College isn't a bad thing (in theory at least). In the Westminster 2-house system i

by nl 6y ago

Am I the only centre-left type person in the world who thinks the Electoral College isn't a bad thing (in theory at least). In the Westminster 2-house system in Australia voters vote for representation from their seat. These seats have approximately the same number of people, but they also vote for an upper-house representative and the smaller states are over-represented in terms of population. This is because otherwise it becomes easy for a federal government to only govern for the very large populations in the cities, and that is bad for the country as a whole - places outside those large population bases are disenfranchised because no amount of voting would matter. The electoral college seems to do a similar thing. I don't think it's perfect, but in principle I don't see it as a bad things that people in say Montana have a means to influence the presidency.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
DC-3 6y ago
Should the vote also be weighted to uphold the interests of other classes of people, like young vs old, or rich vs poor, or bricklayers vs hairdressers? I consider myself more defined by my age and profession than by my hometown but in an electoral college system it is only that latter fact that affects how a vote is weighted.
- Terrario 6y ago
  But the country is not a union of people of different ages and professions, but of different states, technically. The electoral college is a form of protection for the naturally less densely populated agrarian states against the densely populated urban ones. Without the electoral college, the colonies would not have agreed to unite under a shared federal government.
  - nanny 6y ago
    >The electoral college is a form of protection for the naturally less densely populated agrarian states against the densely populated urban ones. This is commonly repeated, but it's BS. What "protection" does the electoral college give to Kansas, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, or Montana? Presidential candidates don't pay any attention to any of those "less densely populated agrarian states". In addition, dense states like NJ, NY, CT, and Mass don't get attention from candidates. California doesn't get any attention either, so what gives? The states that get the attention are the swing states with the highest number of electoral votes, simply because the electoral college incentivizes trying to swing a small number of voters in such states. Watch some of these videos from CGP Grey for more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
    - Terrario 6y ago
      > What "protection" does the electoral college give to Kansas, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, or Montana? Their collective voice along with the rest of the “heartland” is the backbone of the GOP. Trump and Bush both won without the popular vote because the electoral college amplified their collective voice. The electorate doesn’t make them win, it gives them better odds. The campaign focus on swing states should explain itself...
      - nanny 6y ago
        Why should their voices be amplified while mine (in a rural part of NJ) is muffled? Why should the same persons vote be five times more powerful in Wyoming compared to if they lived in California? Why should we disenfranchise the millions of Trump voters in New York and millions of Biden voters in Texas? What about all the cities in red states and the rural areas in dense ones? I don't see a single good reason for the electoral college. And you haven't explained what they're being protected from and why they need such protection.
        gameman144 6y ago
        I think this is a better argument for proportional allocation of electoral votes per state instead of winner-take-all (a la Nebraska), rather than arguing against the electoral college itself. If you feel Trump voters' voices are muffled in NY or Biden voters' voices are muffled in Texas, I agree wholeheartedly and would be strongly in favor of proportional allotment of electors at the state level. The electoral college, however, serves the explicit purpose of making Wyoming votes count more exactly because they are extremely disadvantaged when attempting to impact federal policy. The same argument against the electoral college could be made against the Senate (why should every state get the same number of Senators?), but I don't hear too many disagreements (yet, at least) that the Senate as an institution has value. The top four states have roughly a third of the national population; if federal policy were enacted purely by population, why shouldn't they allocate all federal funds to themselves and deprive other states entirely? The Senate and the electoral college give enough of an advantage to small states that, even though no one or two small states are liable to flip an election by themselves, they are still able to have a voice in federal policy by coalition-building.
- grahamburger 6y ago
  I think of it as giving some representation to the land itself (and it's natural resources) as represented by the people who work and live there.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    The coast of California would then like to send 20 electors (most of them with rather nice beards, some in wetsuits). Harvard wants to send another 40. Science is, after all, more important these days than natural resources. Just compare Switzerland (absolutely nothing of value in the ground) to Equatorial Guinea (top-10 oil reserves). The one export market where the US dominates is culture. Mind if Hollywood sends in a few representatives?
    - grahamburger 6y ago
      The scientists and Hollywood folks are already represented, though - they can vote. The land itself can't. True that today our natural resources aren't our most valuable asset. That makes them easy to ignore and neglect, especially for city dwellers. However, in the event of a major war or natural disaster our natural resources will quickly become very important again, and we'll be glad someone was taking care of them, even if we (and I definitely do) staunchly disagree with their voting preferences.
    - sthnblllII 6y ago
      Urban centres are always going to have an inherent political advantage because of the physically proximity to power. Shorter travel distance to lobby or protest government, closer polls, easier time canvasing, organizing political meetings etc. Have mechanisms to offset this so that rural and non-urban people who form the backbone of the economy are not disadvantaged is a good idea, although its hard to tell if the electoral college does too much to level the playing field or too little.
  - nl 6y ago
    I don't like the characterisation as "land representation" because there is a long and sordid history of only land owners being able to vote. But I do think that farmers (for example) contribute a lot to a country and would lack voting power in a purely population based presidential election system. I'd note that this argument goes against my politics: Farmers as a block are rarely progressives. Edit: Elsewhere gameman144 explains my point better than I have been able to: > The top four states have roughly a third of the national population; if federal policy were enacted purely by population, why shouldn't they allocate all federal funds to themselves and deprive other states entirely? The Senate and the electoral college give enough of an advantage to small states that, even though no one or two small states are liable to flip an election by themselves, they are still able to have a voice in federal policy by coalition-building. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25031351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25031351
alisonkisk 6y ago
Why don't people in California deserve a means to influence the presidency as much as Montana or DC?
- Terrario 6y ago
  California has 55 votes, Montana and DC only have 3 each. Is that not enough influence? Cali and NY make up almost a third of the electoral votes. Is it really fair for these two places to control and dictate the policies of a country spread as far and wide as the US? Hasnt the blue/red divide, not only in the country but within states themselves show that the desires and attitudes of people are heavily influenced by their geographic location? Isn’t a good thing there’s a political system (the electorates) that accounts for this?
  - lmkg 6y ago
    A 'place' is not a meaningful unit of civic participation. From one direction, California and New York are populous. California has 4 individual cities that each have a higher population than Wyoming. Is it unfair that California's influence is larger than Wyoming? From another direction, is California a single place? The Electoral College lumps together San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento into a single unit. Those are miles apart from each other culturally, economically, and demographically (and for that matter, they're hundreds of miles from each other geographically). The Central Valley's relative lack of influence at the national level is because they're tacked on to the same 'place' as Los Angeles and San Francisco, which is an arbitrary division. The House of Representative does a much better (but not perfect) job of geographic representation, because the geographic units are more proportional, and are continuously re-drawn with community cohesiveness as an influencing factor. Much of the skew of the Electoral College comes from the +2 votes per state, when state lines are fixed for centuries.
  - yongjik 6y ago
    > California has 55 votes, Montana and DC only have 3 each. Is that not enough influence? No, California and DC always vote Democrat, and Montana always vote Republican. Individual Republicans in CA and Democrats in MT have zero voice - their voices literally don't matter. In fact, even Democrats in CA and Republicans in MT have zero voice - because these states' outcome is predetermined, no presidential candidate has any incentive to promise anything for them. Not convinced? Just look at the map for 2016 presidential campaign - https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016 No places should control an election. People should.
save_ferris 6y ago
> I don't think it's perfect, but in principle I don't see it as a bad things that people in say Montana have a means to influence the presidency. Under the electoral college system, voters in so-called swing states have much more influence on the outcome of the election than voters in states with established political supremacy. To your point above, in a system where the popular vote determines the outcome, every person's vote weighs equally. On top of that, the electoral college enables the "faithless elector" scenario, in which chosen electors who cast the legally-binding vote for president opt to either vote against the wishes of the electorate or to abstain entirely[0]. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  I thought the result of the supreme court cases is that the votes of faithless electors are nonbinding?
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    The ruling grants states the power to enforce the pledge of an elector or penalize them for casting an alternative vote, but it's up to the states to do so.
- nl 6y ago
  > voters in so-called swing states have much more influence on the outcome of the election than voters in states with established political supremacy I can't imagine any system where there aren't "safe" areas that politicians essentially ignore. Sometimes these "safe" states/areas aren't as safe as they were thought to be (2016 Midwest, 2020 Georgia and Arizona, Texas looks to be heading that way). The Midwest is a perfect example: in 2016 people there felt that the Democratic party was ignoring their needs and switched their traditional trade-union based Democratic voting behaviour to Trump. Areas get attention by changing their voting habits. I don't see this as a bad thing. > On top of that, the electoral college enables the "faithless elector" scenario, in which chosen electors who cast the legally-binding vote for president opt to either vote against the wishes of the electorate or to abstain entirely[0]. Yes I agree entirely this needs to be fixed.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
This entirely vacuous argument is surprisingly popular. Possibly because it gets mixed up with a related, more convincing one. It can never be right to assign the majority of power to a minority of voters. If giving that power to the majority means they can only govern for the majority, then the opposite also holds true: governments elected by a minority can govern for only that minority. And that would seem to be even worse. There is an argument for the minority to have some powers. First among them is a sort of veto power: requiring (some) support from the minority for enacting laws, or the most significant laws (and constitutional changes) is very effective at protecting them. The US implements as much by requiring supermajorities for constitutional amendments, and by the non-linear apportionment of power in both houses of congress, and by the Senat's filibuster. But all that's completely different from awarding the presidency to the minority! And your arguments about the the higher value of rural populations is equally ridiculous. "One person one vote" is a fundamental principle, and for every oh-so-important-farmer in Montana, I can find 10 scientist in a city that are each more important for the supply of food. Plus an additional 10 poets and musicians, because that's also something people need. Tying political power to land isn't democracy, it's feudalism.
- gfxgirl 6y ago
  So from your description it sounds like you believe any work to help minorities have a voice is wrong. For example at one point redistricting was pushed by various people to help give minorities enough collective voice to have some influence. To put it another way. Let's says there are 10 seats representing 1000 people. Those 1000 people are 15% A and 85% B and spread out into 10 districts of 100 people each where no district has more than 20% A. By that, A can never get any representation where as if they let A form a group they can likely get 1 of seat of those 10 representatives and at least have a voice. That kind of thing has been done in many different ways but your post seems to suggest you think it's wrong.
- nl 6y ago
  Whilst I don't agree with you calling this a vacuous argument I think you do make some useful points. > It can never be right to assign the majority of power to a minority of voters. Agreed in principle. Although how this works in a presidential system where there is only one President, it's unclear why someone with 70 million and 1 votes should get 100% of the power and the person with 70 million gets zero. > There is an argument for the minority to have some powers. Agreed, and I think the veto and supermajority powers are good examples. > And your arguments about the the higher value of rural populations is equally ridiculous. "One person one vote" is a fundamental principle, and for every oh-so-important-farmer in Montana I don't think they are as ridiculous as you make out. I'll let the arguments made in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority stand for themselves. I'd note that many democratic countries put in place specific representation for under-represented minorities, and that isn't generally seen as awarding the presidency to the minority. > Tying political power to land isn't democracy, it's feudalism. This sounds right, but it's important to note this isn't the same thing. This isn't about allowing only landowners to vote. I'd argue very very strongly against that!
thristian 6y ago
The Australian lower house is based on the British House of Commons, the Australian upper house is based on the American Senate. Since America already has a Senate to prevent the federal government from optimising for high-population cities, it doesn't need the Electoral College as a second factor.
- nl 6y ago
  This is somewhat true, but the power of the Presidency is much more than the power of the Prime Minister in Westminster systems.
refurb 6y ago
I agree. It’s an intentional feature, not a bug. If it was purely a popular vote system, then the president would always be decided by the large coastal states. The interior would have zero say in who the president is.
enjeyw 6y ago
I think there's two difference that make it less problematic in Australia: - The Australian Senate has significantly less influence on politics than the US President - Senate seats aren't distributed per-state on a "winner takes all basis" - rather in rough proportion to the number of votes each party gets. This means that smaller states with outsized influence are still going to be electing a mix of representatives from each party. (Compare Tasmania to Victoria here [1] - 10X different in number of votes per seat - similar outcome. Even with that said, regardless of the material impact - on principle I don't think it's fair that a person in Tasmania has 10X more voting power than a person in Victoria. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2019_Australian_federal_election_(Senate) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2019_Australian...
- nl 6y ago
  > The Australian Senate has significantly less influence on politics than the US President This is true, but the non-representitive effects on the Australian senate are much higher than in the electoral college. > Senate seats aren't distributed per-state on a "winner takes all basis" - rather in rough proportion to the number of votes each party gets. No argument with this at all - I think most kinds of voting that aren't first-past-the-post (ranked choice etc) are better.
  - enjeyw 6y ago
    > the non-representitive effects on the Australian senate are much higher than in the electoral college. Yeah not gonna lie, I was genuinely shocked to see that Tas holds as much votes as NSW and Vic. >I think most kinds of voting that aren't first-past-the-post Yep, I just wish they were easier to explain! Run-off voting is hard to justify to angry relatives who are incensed that the person who got the second (or third, god forbid!) most 1st pref votes somehow ended up winning.
gfxgirl 6y ago
Yes, you are correct. at least in the USA it's called the "United" States. If each state gets effectively no voice there's no reason for it to stay united with the other states. So yes, at least theory it's not a bad thing. Bad or good is an opinion and it's a valid opinion to see giving states with less population a larger voice in exchange for staying part fo the system as a reasonable tradeoff

by nl 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

DC-3 6y ago

Should the vote also be weighted to uphold the interests of other classes of people, like young vs old, or rich vs poor, or bricklayers vs hairdressers? I consider myself more defined by my age and profession than by my hometown but in an electoral college system it is only that latter fact that affects how a vote is weighted.

Terrario 6y ago
But the country is not a union of people of different ages and professions, but of different states, technically. The electoral college is a form of protection for the naturally less densely populated agrarian states against the densely populated urban ones. Without the electoral college, the colonies would not have agreed to unite under a shared federal government.
- nanny 6y ago
  >The electoral college is a form of protection for the naturally less densely populated agrarian states against the densely populated urban ones. This is commonly repeated, but it's BS. What "protection" does the electoral college give to Kansas, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, or Montana? Presidential candidates don't pay any attention to any of those "less densely populated agrarian states". In addition, dense states like NJ, NY, CT, and Mass don't get attention from candidates. California doesn't get any attention either, so what gives? The states that get the attention are the swing states with the highest number of electoral votes, simply because the electoral college incentivizes trying to swing a small number of voters in such states. Watch some of these videos from CGP Grey for more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
  - Terrario 6y ago
    > What "protection" does the electoral college give to Kansas, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, or Montana? Their collective voice along with the rest of the “heartland” is the backbone of the GOP. Trump and Bush both won without the popular vote because the electoral college amplified their collective voice. The electorate doesn’t make them win, it gives them better odds. The campaign focus on swing states should explain itself...
    - nanny 6y ago
      Why should their voices be amplified while mine (in a rural part of NJ) is muffled? Why should the same persons vote be five times more powerful in Wyoming compared to if they lived in California? Why should we disenfranchise the millions of Trump voters in New York and millions of Biden voters in Texas? What about all the cities in red states and the rural areas in dense ones? I don't see a single good reason for the electoral college. And you haven't explained what they're being protected from and why they need such protection.
      - gameman144 6y ago
        I think this is a better argument for proportional allocation of electoral votes per state instead of winner-take-all (a la Nebraska), rather than arguing against the electoral college itself. If you feel Trump voters' voices are muffled in NY or Biden voters' voices are muffled in Texas, I agree wholeheartedly and would be strongly in favor of proportional allotment of electors at the state level. The electoral college, however, serves the explicit purpose of making Wyoming votes count more exactly because they are extremely disadvantaged when attempting to impact federal policy. The same argument against the electoral college could be made against the Senate (why should every state get the same number of Senators?), but I don't hear too many disagreements (yet, at least) that the Senate as an institution has value. The top four states have roughly a third of the national population; if federal policy were enacted purely by population, why shouldn't they allocate all federal funds to themselves and deprive other states entirely? The Senate and the electoral college give enough of an advantage to small states that, even though no one or two small states are liable to flip an election by themselves, they are still able to have a voice in federal policy by coalition-building.
grahamburger 6y ago
I think of it as giving some representation to the land itself (and it's natural resources) as represented by the people who work and live there.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  The coast of California would then like to send 20 electors (most of them with rather nice beards, some in wetsuits). Harvard wants to send another 40. Science is, after all, more important these days than natural resources. Just compare Switzerland (absolutely nothing of value in the ground) to Equatorial Guinea (top-10 oil reserves). The one export market where the US dominates is culture. Mind if Hollywood sends in a few representatives?
  - grahamburger 6y ago
    The scientists and Hollywood folks are already represented, though - they can vote. The land itself can't. True that today our natural resources aren't our most valuable asset. That makes them easy to ignore and neglect, especially for city dwellers. However, in the event of a major war or natural disaster our natural resources will quickly become very important again, and we'll be glad someone was taking care of them, even if we (and I definitely do) staunchly disagree with their voting preferences.
  - sthnblllII 6y ago
    Urban centres are always going to have an inherent political advantage because of the physically proximity to power. Shorter travel distance to lobby or protest government, closer polls, easier time canvasing, organizing political meetings etc. Have mechanisms to offset this so that rural and non-urban people who form the backbone of the economy are not disadvantaged is a good idea, although its hard to tell if the electoral college does too much to level the playing field or too little.
- nl 6y ago
  I don't like the characterisation as "land representation" because there is a long and sordid history of only land owners being able to vote. But I do think that farmers (for example) contribute a lot to a country and would lack voting power in a purely population based presidential election system. I'd note that this argument goes against my politics: Farmers as a block are rarely progressives. Edit: Elsewhere gameman144 explains my point better than I have been able to: > The top four states have roughly a third of the national population; if federal policy were enacted purely by population, why shouldn't they allocate all federal funds to themselves and deprive other states entirely? The Senate and the electoral college give enough of an advantage to small states that, even though no one or two small states are liable to flip an election by themselves, they are still able to have a voice in federal policy by coalition-building. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25031351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25031351

alisonkisk 6y ago

Why don't people in California deserve a means to influence the presidency as much as Montana or DC?

Terrario 6y ago
California has 55 votes, Montana and DC only have 3 each. Is that not enough influence? Cali and NY make up almost a third of the electoral votes. Is it really fair for these two places to control and dictate the policies of a country spread as far and wide as the US? Hasnt the blue/red divide, not only in the country but within states themselves show that the desires and attitudes of people are heavily influenced by their geographic location? Isn’t a good thing there’s a political system (the electorates) that accounts for this?
- lmkg 6y ago
  A 'place' is not a meaningful unit of civic participation. From one direction, California and New York are populous. California has 4 individual cities that each have a higher population than Wyoming. Is it unfair that California's influence is larger than Wyoming? From another direction, is California a single place? The Electoral College lumps together San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento into a single unit. Those are miles apart from each other culturally, economically, and demographically (and for that matter, they're hundreds of miles from each other geographically). The Central Valley's relative lack of influence at the national level is because they're tacked on to the same 'place' as Los Angeles and San Francisco, which is an arbitrary division. The House of Representative does a much better (but not perfect) job of geographic representation, because the geographic units are more proportional, and are continuously re-drawn with community cohesiveness as an influencing factor. Much of the skew of the Electoral College comes from the +2 votes per state, when state lines are fixed for centuries.
- yongjik 6y ago
  > California has 55 votes, Montana and DC only have 3 each. Is that not enough influence? No, California and DC always vote Democrat, and Montana always vote Republican. Individual Republicans in CA and Democrats in MT have zero voice - their voices literally don't matter. In fact, even Democrats in CA and Republicans in MT have zero voice - because these states' outcome is predetermined, no presidential candidate has any incentive to promise anything for them. Not convinced? Just look at the map for 2016 presidential campaign - https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016 No places should control an election. People should.

save_ferris 6y ago

> I don't think it's perfect, but in principle I don't see it as a bad things that people in say Montana have a means to influence the presidency. Under the electoral college system, voters in so-called swing states have much more influence on the outcome of the election than voters in states with established political supremacy. To your point above, in a system where the popular vote determines the outcome, every person's vote weighs equally. On top of that, the electoral college enables the "faithless elector" scenario, in which chosen electors who cast the legally-binding vote for president opt to either vote against the wishes of the electorate or to abstain entirely[0]. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington

Rebelgecko 6y ago
I thought the result of the supreme court cases is that the votes of faithless electors are nonbinding?
- save_ferris 6y ago
  The ruling grants states the power to enforce the pledge of an elector or penalize them for casting an alternative vote, but it's up to the states to do so.
nl 6y ago
> voters in so-called swing states have much more influence on the outcome of the election than voters in states with established political supremacy I can't imagine any system where there aren't "safe" areas that politicians essentially ignore. Sometimes these "safe" states/areas aren't as safe as they were thought to be (2016 Midwest, 2020 Georgia and Arizona, Texas looks to be heading that way). The Midwest is a perfect example: in 2016 people there felt that the Democratic party was ignoring their needs and switched their traditional trade-union based Democratic voting behaviour to Trump. Areas get attention by changing their voting habits. I don't see this as a bad thing. > On top of that, the electoral college enables the "faithless elector" scenario, in which chosen electors who cast the legally-binding vote for president opt to either vote against the wishes of the electorate or to abstain entirely[0]. Yes I agree entirely this needs to be fixed.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

This entirely vacuous argument is surprisingly popular. Possibly because it gets mixed up with a related, more convincing one. It can never be right to assign the majority of power to a minority of voters. If giving that power to the majority means they can only govern for the majority, then the opposite also holds true: governments elected by a minority can govern for only that minority. And that would seem to be even worse. There is an argument for the minority to have some powers. First among them is a sort of veto power: requiring (some) support from the minority for enacting laws, or the most significant laws (and constitutional changes) is very effective at protecting them. The US implements as much by requiring supermajorities for constitutional amendments, and by the non-linear apportionment of power in both houses of congress, and by the Senat's filibuster. But all that's completely different from awarding the presidency to the minority! And your arguments about the the higher value of rural populations is equally ridiculous. "One person one vote" is a fundamental principle, and for every oh-so-important-farmer in Montana, I can find 10 scientist in a city that are each more important for the supply of food. Plus an additional 10 poets and musicians, because that's also something people need. Tying political power to land isn't democracy, it's feudalism.

gfxgirl 6y ago
So from your description it sounds like you believe any work to help minorities have a voice is wrong. For example at one point redistricting was pushed by various people to help give minorities enough collective voice to have some influence. To put it another way. Let's says there are 10 seats representing 1000 people. Those 1000 people are 15% A and 85% B and spread out into 10 districts of 100 people each where no district has more than 20% A. By that, A can never get any representation where as if they let A form a group they can likely get 1 of seat of those 10 representatives and at least have a voice. That kind of thing has been done in many different ways but your post seems to suggest you think it's wrong.
nl 6y ago
Whilst I don't agree with you calling this a vacuous argument I think you do make some useful points. > It can never be right to assign the majority of power to a minority of voters. Agreed in principle. Although how this works in a presidential system where there is only one President, it's unclear why someone with 70 million and 1 votes should get 100% of the power and the person with 70 million gets zero. > There is an argument for the minority to have some powers. Agreed, and I think the veto and supermajority powers are good examples. > And your arguments about the the higher value of rural populations is equally ridiculous. "One person one vote" is a fundamental principle, and for every oh-so-important-farmer in Montana I don't think they are as ridiculous as you make out. I'll let the arguments made in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority stand for themselves. I'd note that many democratic countries put in place specific representation for under-represented minorities, and that isn't generally seen as awarding the presidency to the minority. > Tying political power to land isn't democracy, it's feudalism. This sounds right, but it's important to note this isn't the same thing. This isn't about allowing only landowners to vote. I'd argue very very strongly against that!

thristian 6y ago

The Australian lower house is based on the British House of Commons, the Australian upper house is based on the American Senate. Since America already has a Senate to prevent the federal government from optimising for high-population cities, it doesn't need the Electoral College as a second factor.

nl 6y ago
This is somewhat true, but the power of the Presidency is much more than the power of the Prime Minister in Westminster systems.

refurb 6y ago

I agree. It’s an intentional feature, not a bug. If it was purely a popular vote system, then the president would always be decided by the large coastal states. The interior would have zero say in who the president is.

enjeyw 6y ago

I think there's two difference that make it less problematic in Australia: - The Australian Senate has significantly less influence on politics than the US President - Senate seats aren't distributed per-state on a "winner takes all basis" - rather in rough proportion to the number of votes each party gets. This means that smaller states with outsized influence are still going to be electing a mix of representatives from each party. (Compare Tasmania to Victoria here [1] - 10X different in number of votes per seat - similar outcome. Even with that said, regardless of the material impact - on principle I don't think it's fair that a person in Tasmania has 10X more voting power than a person in Victoria. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2019_Australian_federal_election_(Senate) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2019_Australian...

nl 6y ago
> The Australian Senate has significantly less influence on politics than the US President This is true, but the non-representitive effects on the Australian senate are much higher than in the electoral college. > Senate seats aren't distributed per-state on a "winner takes all basis" - rather in rough proportion to the number of votes each party gets. No argument with this at all - I think most kinds of voting that aren't first-past-the-post (ranked choice etc) are better.
- enjeyw 6y ago
  > the non-representitive effects on the Australian senate are much higher than in the electoral college. Yeah not gonna lie, I was genuinely shocked to see that Tas holds as much votes as NSW and Vic. >I think most kinds of voting that aren't first-past-the-post Yep, I just wish they were easier to explain! Run-off voting is hard to justify to angry relatives who are incensed that the person who got the second (or third, god forbid!) most 1st pref votes somehow ended up winning.

gfxgirl 6y ago

Yes, you are correct. at least in the USA it's called the "United" States. If each state gets effectively no voice there's no reason for it to stay united with the other states. So yes, at least theory it's not a bad thing. Bad or good is an opinion and it's a valid opinion to see giving states with less population a larger voice in exchange for staying part fo the system as a reasonable tradeoff