4 ms·

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 cons

by 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.
        nl 6y ago
        > 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. I think this explains my point very well. Thanks
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    How about renegotiating the number of electors to be equal per state. If we are a republic of states each state should get equal say. By going to popular vote a third of the country loses a voice.
    - belltaco 6y ago
      The Senate is already like that and has a disproportionate amount of power compared to the House and the President.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
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

by DC-3 6y ago

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.
      - nl 6y ago
        > 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. I think this explains my point very well. Thanks
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  How about renegotiating the number of electors to be equal per state. If we are a republic of states each state should get equal say. By going to popular vote a third of the country loses a voice.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    The Senate is already like that and has a disproportionate amount of power compared to the House and the President.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

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