3 ms·

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

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