10 ms·

I have been thinking that maybe states should get an equal number of electoral votes. We would get the protection of the electoral college and every state woul

I have been thinking that maybe states should get an equal number of electoral votes. We would get the protection of the electoral college and every state would have an equal say.

maxerickson 6y ago
That would be less democratic (small d) than the current system. Do you have some reason that Wyoming should actually have an equal say with New York or Texas or Florida or California?
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  Because they are all states that should have an equal say in what president is elected. A republic of states is beholden to the states. Each state is beholden to its population.
  - TheDong 6y ago
    Federal law impacts all citizens. It doesn't just make laws concerning the states. Why should a man in wyoming's opinion on what federal laws I should live under count 70x as much as mine? Why should a minority of the country make a decision that impacts the majority of people?
    - umvi 6y ago
      Well if you believe Wyoming should just be steamrolled by California's desires 100% of the time, why shouldn't Wyoming secede from the union? In fact, why should any "small states" join the union in the first place if they are just going to be steamrolled by California and New York?
      - tastyfreeze 6y ago
        Being from Alaska I would argue that my vote for president has never counted. Some years there is a decision before my polls close.
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        Your state doesn't start counting mail in ballots until a week after election. Given the logistical challenge you ought to be simply mailing out ballots sooner and counting them as they come in. Every other state avoids duplication between mail and in person voting without waiting a week between polls and ballots.
      - majormajor 6y ago
        I would love small states to secede... I think, though, that they would realize they need the big states to pay for shit, protect them, etc...
        throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        This is a red herring. All the states are only a few % away from net neutral when it comes to federal money in vs out. Pretty much any state could go it alone from a monetary perspective. Trade agreements would be the hard part. Also, I think you're greatly mis-judging how a deal to the tune of "be 5% poorer but do 100% listening to what the people on the coasts have to say" sounds to e.g. the midwest. You say that like it's an obvious bad deal. I don't think all of them would agree with you on that though. They might just take you up on it given the option.
        majormajor 6y ago
        I'm unconvinced that I'd be any worse off if, say, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas left. Again, right now, I'd like them to take me up on it. Their citizens' voting power is so much greater than mine, it is infuriating.
        umvi 6y ago
        Canada and EU don't seem to mind having tiny militaries and relying on the US protecting them. Small states can just be their own countries that pay some small % of GDP for USA to protect them with military.
      - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        Because if they leave, they'll have the pleasure of getting steamrolled by other countries, including the United States. Fundamentally, you're making an argument against democracy, and in favor of giving people who live in small states greater influence than people who live in large states. A person who moves a few miles across the border from Colorado to Wyoming suddenly sees their vote count for 3 times as much in the Electoral College. It gets even crazier once you start considering how swing states play into this. Your vote makes no difference in most states. But there are a few states where your vote might count, for the sole reason that those states happen to be evenly balanced. It's a ridiculous, irrational system. It was the best that could be negotiated in 1787, but it doesn't make sense in 2020.
        umvi 6y ago
        So would you say Canada (the entire country of which has a smaller population than California) regularly gets steamrolled by other countries, including USA? And if not, then maybe all the small states need to do is band together into their own country, away from large state bullies
        DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        Sometimes it does. It certainly doesn't get the preferential treatment from the US that Wyoming gets. Would the US treat Wyoming better as a state or as a foreign country? Just as importantly, how much leverage would Wyoming have in dealing with foreign countries? How much leverage would it have in trade negotiations with the EU, or with the US, for that matter?
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      Your vote counts just as much as the other people in your state. You are voting for who your state thinks the president should be. You have never voted for the president directly.
      - TheDong 6y ago
        I'm aware of that fact. I'm hopeful the popular vote interstate compact[0] will get adopted by enough states to make it so each person's vote counts equally. What you suggested above is a way to weight citizen's vote's even less equally than they do now, which is what I was responding to. The situation we have now is bad too, imo, but better than each state having an equal vote, irrespective of population. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
        tastyfreeze 6y ago
        Popular vote destroys any shred of state sovereignty that remains. Why would states remain in the union if California and New York forever dictate the direction of the country? This is a dark path to tread.
        js2 6y ago
        Minoritarian rule through anti-democratic bodies like the EC and the Senate is a dark path to tread. The states have sovereignty through federalism and the US constitution. The EC and the Senate are not necessary to their sovereignty.
        mithr 6y ago
        Presumably because they'd want something that another union state provides, and/or benefits that comes with being a larger country rather than an small independent one. A union can't really be "equal" between all states unless all states contribute and benefit equally, and you can't really expect millions of people who live in a prosperous and populous state to be willing to discount their own voices so that the voices of those who may contribute less count far more than theirs. I'm not sure a perfect system exists -- it's all a series of tradeoffs, and a popular vote system would have its own -- but saying that the 700k people living in Alaska should have the exact same influence as the 40 million people living in California doesn't make things any better. Ultimately, a country is made up of people, not political entities.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Because federal law is only supposed to be a very small part of the law that applies to people.
      - dd36 6y ago
        Hence the Senate. The President doesn’t legislate.
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        In 18th century theory. In 21st century practice it's incredibly influential. Do we tax more for social security or cut benefits, do we extend medicare to 55 year olds or delay it until 70, can my daca friends get a job, can Icontinue to operate a company(Obamacare), not to mention war. It's far more influential than my city( or state government.(I live in Houston, this would probably be less true in states like New York or California which has have a larger government) Another proxy for influence is money, and I contribute far more to the federal government than I pay in state and local taxes, which reflects the very large impact it has on our lives.
        rayiner 6y ago
        It’s not an 18th century versus 21st century thing. Switzerland manages to be a 21sr century country without equal representation at the federal level.
        JamesBarney 6y ago
        My point was just that you're right, in the 18th century when the founding fathers designed this system the federal government was weak and federal law had very little influence. But in the 21st century the u.s. federal government has a much larger influence on people's lives. When a government is closer to a defense pact like Nato it makes sense to have voting apportioned by regional power. But as that government starts to have a larger impact on your day to day life than it makes less sense. If we started sending nato several trillion dollars a year it makes less sense for Bulgaria to have the same say in how that money is spent as we do. And there isn't really any political appetite to roll back the federal government to a size where that type of representation made sense. Moving social security and Medicare from the federal to the state or city level would be a political non starter.
    - jessedhillon 6y ago
      > Why should a man in wyoming's opinion on what federal laws I should live under count 70x as much as mine? Because ideally, that distribution will give you pause when considering vesting power into the federal government.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    So take a step back. Why would (the people of/in) California and Texas and so on choose to support such a republic? As it is you've defined a circle. "It's a republic so it should be run based just on the borders of the constituents".
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      Yes that is how it should be. Each state has different interests. By having electoral votes based on population we are not avoiding the problem of population centers directing the country. How is electing a president different than votes for a constitutional amendment? Each state gets one vote there.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        Well, for one thing, the foundational document that the states used to establish the union has different rules for electing president than for modifying the union. You aren't arguing that part of it, the part where people (likely) wouldn't put up with the system you propose.
      - cma 6y ago
        D.C. gets presidential votes I thought?
        js2 6y ago
        Yes it has three EC votes which is why it’s 538 and not 535 (435 reps + 100 senators) EC votes.
      - bfrog 6y ago
        Tax revenues which pay for federal services like the armed forces, led by the president, aren't equally contributed by each state. The day that happens is the day Wyoming's vote can be equal to California. It'd also be the day California succeeds from the union.
        6y ago
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Why should all states have an equal say in how the president is elected? Why should the desires of half a million in the lowest state be worth as much as the 40 million in the most populous state. In this context either the 40 million have to give the half a million gifts of tax dollars and policy goals that the minority could never dream of achieving in an actual democracy or they have to give them bullets. Which do you think it would be long term? Can you name another functional democracy of any variety who gives arbitrarily constructed territories of wildly disparate population sizes "equal" say in the running of things?
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    "We the People of the United States, ..." The United States is not a union of separate republics. The method of electing the president is supposed to reflect the sovereignty of the people, with most of the electoral votes being apportioned according to population. The Great Compromise did give the small states disproportionate representation (an extra two electors, independent of population), but most electors are still tied to population. The Electoral College is an anachronism. The US is far more unified now than it was in the 1780s. People move between states, and believe much more strongly in democracy than they did 240 years ago (e.g., state legislatures appointing Senators would be unthinkable now, as would denying the vote to any adult citizen). If anything, arbitrary state boundaries should play no role in how much of an impact a person's vote has.
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      So you are arguing for no more states. I very much enjoy the ability to move to another state on a whim if I dont like the state government. Under a popular vote we might as well disband congress. No need for state representation in a direct democracy.
      - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        > So you are arguing for no more states. Where did I argue for that? I'm arguing for the state one lives in having no impact on how much one's vote for president counts. I never said that the US should eliminate federalism and run everything directly out of DC. > Under a popular vote we might as well disband congress. I don't follow your logic here. Based on my reasoning, it would make sense to either make Senate representation proportional to population, or to disband the Senate altogether, but some representative legislative body obviously has to remain. The House of Representatives is just such a body.
        tastyfreeze 6y ago
        I don't like this example because the effectiveness of direct democracy is greater in small groups. I selected a dinner with families as representative of states with different desires but similar desires within a state. Akin to how a family has similar tastes in food. On that level I feel it is a good example. Lets say we have a group of families voting on what to have for a shared dinner. Each family gets one vote. Each family gets to decide how their vote is cast. One family of 10 decides they want roast beef. One family of 5 decides they want roast chicken. One newlywed couple decides they want roast chicken. Every member of each family is happy with their choice because they agreed through discussion in their family. So, there is one vote for roast beef and 2 for roast chicken. But, every family member was happy with the way their vote was tallied even if 10 people aren't getting what they want for dinner. A popular vote removes the ability of a family to vote in a way they all agree. The family of 10 will always be deciding what everybody has for dinner. At that point it isn't a dinner of families it is a dinner of 17 individuals with 7 never having what they want. So if you are having a dinner with 17 individuals why maintain the grouping of families? With regards to directing what is for dinner the group of a family becomes irrelevant. It also creates division within families instead of agreement on shared direction. This is similar to popular vote vs electoral college. A popular vote makes the grouping of a state irrelevant and more easily argued that it shouldn't exist. "The populous elects the president directly. Why do we have representatives? We should make policy direct vote as well. Lets get our greater number of representatives to push that through." Disbanding congress is not an immediate result of popular vote. It is a possible undesirable end. The structure of government should remove the possibility of undesirable outcomes of human nature as much as it can.
- rayiner 6y ago
  It would dissuade big states from trying to get all of their policy goals done at the federal level, which would be a good thing.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Rendering the federal government impotent by ensuring that 10% of rurals owned it but 90% of populous states were subject to it wouldn't discourage people from getting their policy goals done at the federal level it would insure that there wouldn't BE a federal level in 10 years.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Which would be great.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - kls 6y ago
      I think the point being made is the federal government was originally given a very limited charter, over time that charter has expanded to the point where factions are battling for control of it, because it is now the seat of power. When the republic, as it was designed, was intended to deal with things at the state level. The foundational republic looked more like 13 small countries that bound together by a federated agreement on defense, taxes, liberties, citizenship. This was the idea, that the states could look very different from one another on the way they governed. The problem was while this was great for the individual to find a representative government, it creates a horrible business climate for those so inclined. So gradually business money wanted to move more of their regulation to the federal level and avoid state regulation as they had to comply with each state to conduct business. It started with banking, then the railroad barons, then electric companies and other public works, then moved on the the military industrial complex and now we have the tech companies getting in on the actions. So in today's context, due to distortion towards business interests, it is very disjointed and does not make sense, but under the limited federalist contract of the founding republic it made sense that each state had equal representation at the table that bound them together. Now we have gotten to the point where we are pushing social issues to the federal level and it is not going to end well. That being said, the remedy is not just go to a popular vote, a popular vote is just mob rule by the majority. The republic was designed to co-exist with people that don't agree on everything, federalization forces them to agree, and the popular vote, just silences the minorities voice and will eventually lead to their rights being revoked, which is not a formula for success.
Glyptodon 6y ago
That's why the Senate exists basically.
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  Yet when it comes to electing a president some states are more equal than others.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    You are right small states are quite over represented in the EC NOW. For example if they were actually proportional Alaska would have 1 elector instead of 3.
cycomanic 6y ago
It would be worthwhile to look at the history of the electoral college [1]. It was not there to balance state powers (that's what the senate is for). It was a compromise between the people who did not want congress to be part of the voting (due to opportunity for corruption) and the ones that did not want a popular vote, because they did not trust the uneducated masses and feared mob rule. So the electoral college was born as compromise. The distribution of votes was actually performed based on population which even included slaves (as 3/5 people as another compromise, because the southern states wanted slaves to count for their votes, but not have them vote). It's just state populations have changed dramatically since then and the electoral college has not. [1] https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fath...
- camhart 6y ago
  The article and your comment summarizes factions into simply "mob rule", and seem to lead the reader to believe the electoral college wasn't well thought out--just a compromise. While the 3/5ths idea is apalling, using it the way you've done is, in my opinion, done to try and enforce the idea that its fundamentally flawed. The electoral college is designed to balance power. " In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[35] " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Coll... "Historians such as Charles A. Beard argue that No. 10 shows an explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of the principles of direct democracy and factionalism, and argue that Madison suggests that a representative republic is more effective against partisanship and factionalism." "Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of a faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. Madison defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community".[14] He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues..." See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
michaelmrose 6y ago
This is a terrible terrible idea. To understand how large the 10 least populous states have a population put together of about 9 million people. The 10 most populous states have about 179 million. What you are suggesting is that we weigh small state voter as equal to 20 large state voter. That isn't an "equal say" its tyranny. To put it in perspective you are suggesting that say Wyoming and Vermont whose population amounts to a million people out to be able to out vote Californias 40 million. This is in fact such a terrible idea that were in implemented it would be in and of itself so terrible that it would sufficient reason for the dissolution of the entire union as rich populous states rebelled and left. You would do less damage to the union by picking a state with a map and a dart board and nuking it.
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  A few large cities ruling the country is tyranny to those that live outside the cities. Only by granting equal state votes can we avoid a small portion of the country having an overwhelming amount of say in electing an executive. States are members of the union. You are a member of your state not of the union. Not being a member directly of the union you should not have equal say. If you did have equal say there is no reason to have states. If we dont have states it is time to draft a new constitution cause the old one doesnt apply.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Its not a "few" large cities its most of your fellow citizens. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america... >Urban areas make up only 3 percent of the entire land area of the country but are home to more than 80 percent of the population. Conversely, 97 percent of the country’s land mass is rural but only 19.3 percent of the population lives there. Its not tyranny for a democracy to privilege the voice of 80% over 20% its is the literal definition of the term democracy. It is a matter of courtesy that we debate it here because back in the real world in the corridors of power it is so far from acceptable it will get no hearing now nor ever because it would literally require the 80% to support their own subjugation. You are more likely to see a cure for aging and see the shores of alien worlds with your own eyes than see this come to pass. I understand you may feel that your views are discounted but for you and indeed everyone like you there is 4 people for each one who will not vote to be subordinated to you. Why would they? Given that they don't agree with you why would they vote to implement a scheme by which your will would be placed above them. Sooner ask for the US to be riven in 2 so that people in the "heartland" can opt to go their own way. Its not going to happen either but at least it in theory could absent the contentious challenge of slavery maybe confederacy 2.0 could work.

I have been thinking that maybe states should get an equal number of electoral votes. We would get the protection of the electoral college and every state would have an equal say.

maxerickson 6y ago

That would be less democratic (small d) than the current system. Do you have some reason that Wyoming should actually have an equal say with New York or Texas or Florida or California?

tastyfreeze 6y ago
Because they are all states that should have an equal say in what president is elected. A republic of states is beholden to the states. Each state is beholden to its population.
- TheDong 6y ago
  Federal law impacts all citizens. It doesn't just make laws concerning the states. Why should a man in wyoming's opinion on what federal laws I should live under count 70x as much as mine? Why should a minority of the country make a decision that impacts the majority of people?
  - umvi 6y ago
    Well if you believe Wyoming should just be steamrolled by California's desires 100% of the time, why shouldn't Wyoming secede from the union? In fact, why should any "small states" join the union in the first place if they are just going to be steamrolled by California and New York?
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      Being from Alaska I would argue that my vote for president has never counted. Some years there is a decision before my polls close.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        Your state doesn't start counting mail in ballots until a week after election. Given the logistical challenge you ought to be simply mailing out ballots sooner and counting them as they come in. Every other state avoids duplication between mail and in person voting without waiting a week between polls and ballots.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      I would love small states to secede... I think, though, that they would realize they need the big states to pay for shit, protect them, etc...
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        This is a red herring. All the states are only a few % away from net neutral when it comes to federal money in vs out. Pretty much any state could go it alone from a monetary perspective. Trade agreements would be the hard part. Also, I think you're greatly mis-judging how a deal to the tune of "be 5% poorer but do 100% listening to what the people on the coasts have to say" sounds to e.g. the midwest. You say that like it's an obvious bad deal. I don't think all of them would agree with you on that though. They might just take you up on it given the option.
        majormajor 6y ago
        I'm unconvinced that I'd be any worse off if, say, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas left. Again, right now, I'd like them to take me up on it. Their citizens' voting power is so much greater than mine, it is infuriating.
      - umvi 6y ago
        Canada and EU don't seem to mind having tiny militaries and relying on the US protecting them. Small states can just be their own countries that pay some small % of GDP for USA to protect them with military.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      Because if they leave, they'll have the pleasure of getting steamrolled by other countries, including the United States. Fundamentally, you're making an argument against democracy, and in favor of giving people who live in small states greater influence than people who live in large states. A person who moves a few miles across the border from Colorado to Wyoming suddenly sees their vote count for 3 times as much in the Electoral College. It gets even crazier once you start considering how swing states play into this. Your vote makes no difference in most states. But there are a few states where your vote might count, for the sole reason that those states happen to be evenly balanced. It's a ridiculous, irrational system. It was the best that could be negotiated in 1787, but it doesn't make sense in 2020.
      - umvi 6y ago
        So would you say Canada (the entire country of which has a smaller population than California) regularly gets steamrolled by other countries, including USA? And if not, then maybe all the small states need to do is band together into their own country, away from large state bullies
        DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        Sometimes it does. It certainly doesn't get the preferential treatment from the US that Wyoming gets. Would the US treat Wyoming better as a state or as a foreign country? Just as importantly, how much leverage would Wyoming have in dealing with foreign countries? How much leverage would it have in trade negotiations with the EU, or with the US, for that matter?
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    Your vote counts just as much as the other people in your state. You are voting for who your state thinks the president should be. You have never voted for the president directly.
    - TheDong 6y ago
      I'm aware of that fact. I'm hopeful the popular vote interstate compact[0] will get adopted by enough states to make it so each person's vote counts equally. What you suggested above is a way to weight citizen's vote's even less equally than they do now, which is what I was responding to. The situation we have now is bad too, imo, but better than each state having an equal vote, irrespective of population. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
      - tastyfreeze 6y ago
        Popular vote destroys any shred of state sovereignty that remains. Why would states remain in the union if California and New York forever dictate the direction of the country? This is a dark path to tread.
        js2 6y ago
        Minoritarian rule through anti-democratic bodies like the EC and the Senate is a dark path to tread. The states have sovereignty through federalism and the US constitution. The EC and the Senate are not necessary to their sovereignty.
        mithr 6y ago
        Presumably because they'd want something that another union state provides, and/or benefits that comes with being a larger country rather than an small independent one. A union can't really be "equal" between all states unless all states contribute and benefit equally, and you can't really expect millions of people who live in a prosperous and populous state to be willing to discount their own voices so that the voices of those who may contribute less count far more than theirs. I'm not sure a perfect system exists -- it's all a series of tradeoffs, and a popular vote system would have its own -- but saying that the 700k people living in Alaska should have the exact same influence as the 40 million people living in California doesn't make things any better. Ultimately, a country is made up of people, not political entities.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Because federal law is only supposed to be a very small part of the law that applies to people.
    - dd36 6y ago
      Hence the Senate. The President doesn’t legislate.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      In 18th century theory. In 21st century practice it's incredibly influential. Do we tax more for social security or cut benefits, do we extend medicare to 55 year olds or delay it until 70, can my daca friends get a job, can Icontinue to operate a company(Obamacare), not to mention war. It's far more influential than my city( or state government.(I live in Houston, this would probably be less true in states like New York or California which has have a larger government) Another proxy for influence is money, and I contribute far more to the federal government than I pay in state and local taxes, which reflects the very large impact it has on our lives.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        It’s not an 18th century versus 21st century thing. Switzerland manages to be a 21sr century country without equal representation at the federal level.
        JamesBarney 6y ago
        My point was just that you're right, in the 18th century when the founding fathers designed this system the federal government was weak and federal law had very little influence. But in the 21st century the u.s. federal government has a much larger influence on people's lives. When a government is closer to a defense pact like Nato it makes sense to have voting apportioned by regional power. But as that government starts to have a larger impact on your day to day life than it makes less sense. If we started sending nato several trillion dollars a year it makes less sense for Bulgaria to have the same say in how that money is spent as we do. And there isn't really any political appetite to roll back the federal government to a size where that type of representation made sense. Moving social security and Medicare from the federal to the state or city level would be a political non starter.
  - jessedhillon 6y ago
    > Why should a man in wyoming's opinion on what federal laws I should live under count 70x as much as mine? Because ideally, that distribution will give you pause when considering vesting power into the federal government.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  So take a step back. Why would (the people of/in) California and Texas and so on choose to support such a republic? As it is you've defined a circle. "It's a republic so it should be run based just on the borders of the constituents".
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    Yes that is how it should be. Each state has different interests. By having electoral votes based on population we are not avoiding the problem of population centers directing the country. How is electing a president different than votes for a constitutional amendment? Each state gets one vote there.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Well, for one thing, the foundational document that the states used to establish the union has different rules for electing president than for modifying the union. You aren't arguing that part of it, the part where people (likely) wouldn't put up with the system you propose.
    - cma 6y ago
      D.C. gets presidential votes I thought?
      - js2 6y ago
        Yes it has three EC votes which is why it’s 538 and not 535 (435 reps + 100 senators) EC votes.
    - bfrog 6y ago
      Tax revenues which pay for federal services like the armed forces, led by the president, aren't equally contributed by each state. The day that happens is the day Wyoming's vote can be equal to California. It'd also be the day California succeeds from the union.
      - 6y ago
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Why should all states have an equal say in how the president is elected? Why should the desires of half a million in the lowest state be worth as much as the 40 million in the most populous state. In this context either the 40 million have to give the half a million gifts of tax dollars and policy goals that the minority could never dream of achieving in an actual democracy or they have to give them bullets. Which do you think it would be long term? Can you name another functional democracy of any variety who gives arbitrarily constructed territories of wildly disparate population sizes "equal" say in the running of things?
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  "We the People of the United States, ..." The United States is not a union of separate republics. The method of electing the president is supposed to reflect the sovereignty of the people, with most of the electoral votes being apportioned according to population. The Great Compromise did give the small states disproportionate representation (an extra two electors, independent of population), but most electors are still tied to population. The Electoral College is an anachronism. The US is far more unified now than it was in the 1780s. People move between states, and believe much more strongly in democracy than they did 240 years ago (e.g., state legislatures appointing Senators would be unthinkable now, as would denying the vote to any adult citizen). If anything, arbitrary state boundaries should play no role in how much of an impact a person's vote has.
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    So you are arguing for no more states. I very much enjoy the ability to move to another state on a whim if I dont like the state government. Under a popular vote we might as well disband congress. No need for state representation in a direct democracy.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      > So you are arguing for no more states. Where did I argue for that? I'm arguing for the state one lives in having no impact on how much one's vote for president counts. I never said that the US should eliminate federalism and run everything directly out of DC. > Under a popular vote we might as well disband congress. I don't follow your logic here. Based on my reasoning, it would make sense to either make Senate representation proportional to population, or to disband the Senate altogether, but some representative legislative body obviously has to remain. The House of Representatives is just such a body.
      - tastyfreeze 6y ago
        I don't like this example because the effectiveness of direct democracy is greater in small groups. I selected a dinner with families as representative of states with different desires but similar desires within a state. Akin to how a family has similar tastes in food. On that level I feel it is a good example. Lets say we have a group of families voting on what to have for a shared dinner. Each family gets one vote. Each family gets to decide how their vote is cast. One family of 10 decides they want roast beef. One family of 5 decides they want roast chicken. One newlywed couple decides they want roast chicken. Every member of each family is happy with their choice because they agreed through discussion in their family. So, there is one vote for roast beef and 2 for roast chicken. But, every family member was happy with the way their vote was tallied even if 10 people aren't getting what they want for dinner. A popular vote removes the ability of a family to vote in a way they all agree. The family of 10 will always be deciding what everybody has for dinner. At that point it isn't a dinner of families it is a dinner of 17 individuals with 7 never having what they want. So if you are having a dinner with 17 individuals why maintain the grouping of families? With regards to directing what is for dinner the group of a family becomes irrelevant. It also creates division within families instead of agreement on shared direction. This is similar to popular vote vs electoral college. A popular vote makes the grouping of a state irrelevant and more easily argued that it shouldn't exist. "The populous elects the president directly. Why do we have representatives? We should make policy direct vote as well. Lets get our greater number of representatives to push that through." Disbanding congress is not an immediate result of popular vote. It is a possible undesirable end. The structure of government should remove the possibility of undesirable outcomes of human nature as much as it can.
rayiner 6y ago
It would dissuade big states from trying to get all of their policy goals done at the federal level, which would be a good thing.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Rendering the federal government impotent by ensuring that 10% of rurals owned it but 90% of populous states were subject to it wouldn't discourage people from getting their policy goals done at the federal level it would insure that there wouldn't BE a federal level in 10 years.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Which would be great.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - kls 6y ago
    I think the point being made is the federal government was originally given a very limited charter, over time that charter has expanded to the point where factions are battling for control of it, because it is now the seat of power. When the republic, as it was designed, was intended to deal with things at the state level. The foundational republic looked more like 13 small countries that bound together by a federated agreement on defense, taxes, liberties, citizenship. This was the idea, that the states could look very different from one another on the way they governed. The problem was while this was great for the individual to find a representative government, it creates a horrible business climate for those so inclined. So gradually business money wanted to move more of their regulation to the federal level and avoid state regulation as they had to comply with each state to conduct business. It started with banking, then the railroad barons, then electric companies and other public works, then moved on the the military industrial complex and now we have the tech companies getting in on the actions. So in today's context, due to distortion towards business interests, it is very disjointed and does not make sense, but under the limited federalist contract of the founding republic it made sense that each state had equal representation at the table that bound them together. Now we have gotten to the point where we are pushing social issues to the federal level and it is not going to end well. That being said, the remedy is not just go to a popular vote, a popular vote is just mob rule by the majority. The republic was designed to co-exist with people that don't agree on everything, federalization forces them to agree, and the popular vote, just silences the minorities voice and will eventually lead to their rights being revoked, which is not a formula for success.

Glyptodon 6y ago

That's why the Senate exists basically.

tastyfreeze 6y ago
Yet when it comes to electing a president some states are more equal than others.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  You are right small states are quite over represented in the EC NOW. For example if they were actually proportional Alaska would have 1 elector instead of 3.

cycomanic 6y ago

It would be worthwhile to look at the history of the electoral college [1]. It was not there to balance state powers (that's what the senate is for). It was a compromise between the people who did not want congress to be part of the voting (due to opportunity for corruption) and the ones that did not want a popular vote, because they did not trust the uneducated masses and feared mob rule. So the electoral college was born as compromise. The distribution of votes was actually performed based on population which even included slaves (as 3/5 people as another compromise, because the southern states wanted slaves to count for their votes, but not have them vote). It's just state populations have changed dramatically since then and the electoral college has not. [1] https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fath...

camhart 6y ago
The article and your comment summarizes factions into simply "mob rule", and seem to lead the reader to believe the electoral college wasn't well thought out--just a compromise. While the 3/5ths idea is apalling, using it the way you've done is, in my opinion, done to try and enforce the idea that its fundamentally flawed. The electoral college is designed to balance power. " In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[35] " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Coll... "Historians such as Charles A. Beard argue that No. 10 shows an explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of the principles of direct democracy and factionalism, and argue that Madison suggests that a representative republic is more effective against partisanship and factionalism." "Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of a faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. Madison defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community".[14] He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues..." See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

michaelmrose 6y ago

This is a terrible terrible idea. To understand how large the 10 least populous states have a population put together of about 9 million people. The 10 most populous states have about 179 million. What you are suggesting is that we weigh small state voter as equal to 20 large state voter. That isn't an "equal say" its tyranny. To put it in perspective you are suggesting that say Wyoming and Vermont whose population amounts to a million people out to be able to out vote Californias 40 million. This is in fact such a terrible idea that were in implemented it would be in and of itself so terrible that it would sufficient reason for the dissolution of the entire union as rich populous states rebelled and left. You would do less damage to the union by picking a state with a map and a dart board and nuking it.

tastyfreeze 6y ago
A few large cities ruling the country is tyranny to those that live outside the cities. Only by granting equal state votes can we avoid a small portion of the country having an overwhelming amount of say in electing an executive. States are members of the union. You are a member of your state not of the union. Not being a member directly of the union you should not have equal say. If you did have equal say there is no reason to have states. If we dont have states it is time to draft a new constitution cause the old one doesnt apply.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Its not a "few" large cities its most of your fellow citizens. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america... >Urban areas make up only 3 percent of the entire land area of the country but are home to more than 80 percent of the population. Conversely, 97 percent of the country’s land mass is rural but only 19.3 percent of the population lives there. Its not tyranny for a democracy to privilege the voice of 80% over 20% its is the literal definition of the term democracy. It is a matter of courtesy that we debate it here because back in the real world in the corridors of power it is so far from acceptable it will get no hearing now nor ever because it would literally require the 80% to support their own subjugation. You are more likely to see a cure for aging and see the shores of alien worlds with your own eyes than see this come to pass. I understand you may feel that your views are discounted but for you and indeed everyone like you there is 4 people for each one who will not vote to be subordinated to you. Why would they? Given that they don't agree with you why would they vote to implement a scheme by which your will would be placed above them. Sooner ask for the US to be riven in 2 so that people in the "heartland" can opt to go their own way. Its not going to happen either but at least it in theory could absent the contentious challenge of slavery maybe confederacy 2.0 could work.