19 ms·

or that people would making a different vote if it was counted differently? Two changes would happen. A lot of people who don't vote today because their state

by dagw 5y ago

or that people would making a different vote if it was counted differently? Two changes would happen. A lot of people who don't vote today because their state either heavily favours the 'wrong' candidate or the 'right' candidate will already win by a massive margin, would start voting, since all of sudden their vote matters a lot more. Secondly, and more importantly, candidates would campaign very differently. In todays system gaining 1-2 percentage points in swing states like Arizona, Georgia or North Carolina is worth infinitely more than gaining 5 percentage point in California, New York or Massachusetts, and politicians on both sides campaign accordingly. In a popular vote scenario those extra 5 points in California could swing the election which would change the entire focus of not only the campaign, but possibly even the type of policy and even candidates that the parties put forwards.

treeman79 5y ago
This also makes many states cease to matter. Already a big issue that big cities vote one way while rural voters go another way.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  Stated differently, this makes states matter and rural voters matter in direct proportion to the number of people living there, because all people are equal. It's not right that a voter in Maine or New Hampshire, which have 1.3 million people and are roughly even between the two major parties, has a high probability of changing the outcome with their vote, while a voter in California or Texas - which have 30 times as many people - is essentially irrelevant to the outcome.
  - asiachick 5y ago
    This isn't so different in the EU is it? Smaller countries don't want their needs ignored by the bigger countries so they get more seats relative to their population than big countries. Maybe it's hard to imagine the United States of American to become 50 independent countries but isn't the way you keep them united is by promising the smaller ones that they won't be trampled on by the big ones?
    - logicchains 5y ago
      Nobody wants full democracy. Full democracy is what allowed Hitler to get away with gassing six million Jews, just because the majority of the population agreed it was a good idea at the time. Now Germany has very strict constitutional protections of certain rights to make it very hard for the majority to violate the minority like that again. State rights act similarly, protecting the populations of individual states to some degree from the arbitrary whims of the majority.
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        This wouldn't help Jews in WWII because Jews weren't grouped into a single German electoral region. If you spread 49.9% of the population evenly in a system where states vote rather than individuals, you've insured that this minority gets no representation.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >Full democracy is what allowed Hitler to... What election are you referring to where the Germans democratically gave Hitler power? His best "fair" election results saw his party get ~35% of the vote, and he only got the largely ceremonial chancellorship through backdoor deals. By the time he became president nobody could consider the elections fair.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      > isn't the way you keep them united is by promising the smaller ones that they won't be trampled on by the big ones? Yes, but in the US, at least, it's gotten to the absurd opposite where the minority is more or less assured a majority of votes. In order to avoid tyranny of the majority, we've more or less codified tyranny of the minority.
      - kodah 5y ago
        What's your evidence behind the statement that "the minority" is assured a majority of votes? Both Democrats and Republicans have won the electoral college and each of them throw a big rhetorical fit any time the other wins with it. At some point you have to accept that being equal doesn't always look fair in a micro vs macro sense of time. In the moment it doesn't look fair, when you look at the longer timeline they've had their share of elections. The system seems to be working as intended. It would be more helpful to describe what a state of affairs looks like that doesn't result in large population states, who already maintain the gift/grift of cultural hegemony, running the country.
- rurp 5y ago
  No, it makes votes in all states count equally. The current system makes votes in certain states orders of magnitude more valuable than votes in others.
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  The "intended" malapportionment to benefit small states[0] is a far smaller effect than the "unintended" effect of silencing local political minorities. If you wanted to retain the former, you could replace the Electoral College with just weighing votes cast in smaller states slightly more. Right now, neither large nor small states have a say in presidential elections at all - it's purely undecided states that play kingmaker, and it drastically warps the priorities of elected Presidents. [0] Which is also a problem. You know how everyone says the EU is undemocratic? It's for the same reason why we have an Electoral College - the whole "federal government represents states instead of people" thing.
  - naniwaduni 5y ago
    > You know how everyone says the EU is undemocratic? It's for the same reason why we have an Electoral College - the whole "federal government represents states instead of people" thing. The grass sure is greener on every other side.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- simiones 5y ago
  Isn't this already the case, except right now it's states like California or Texas that don't matter, since they always vote the same way anyway?
- techsupporter 5y ago
  > This also makes many states cease to matter. States are abstract political entities; it's people who matter. People are represented in the House by population (less so than they should be since we refuse to let the lower chamber grow in size) and in the Senate by state. The President of the United States represents every United States citizen everywhere on the planet. The holder of that office should be elected by a majority, preferably with some form of expression of ranking preference, of those voters regardless of what political entity they are currently in or connected to.
- LocalH 5y ago
  By that you mean the swing states? If so, good. Those states don't deserve a disproportionate weight into who we elect as President.

by dagw 5y ago

treeman79 5y ago

This also makes many states cease to matter. Already a big issue that big cities vote one way while rural voters go another way.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago
Stated differently, this makes states matter and rural voters matter in direct proportion to the number of people living there, because all people are equal. It's not right that a voter in Maine or New Hampshire, which have 1.3 million people and are roughly even between the two major parties, has a high probability of changing the outcome with their vote, while a voter in California or Texas - which have 30 times as many people - is essentially irrelevant to the outcome.
- asiachick 5y ago
  This isn't so different in the EU is it? Smaller countries don't want their needs ignored by the bigger countries so they get more seats relative to their population than big countries. Maybe it's hard to imagine the United States of American to become 50 independent countries but isn't the way you keep them united is by promising the smaller ones that they won't be trampled on by the big ones?
  - logicchains 5y ago
    Nobody wants full democracy. Full democracy is what allowed Hitler to get away with gassing six million Jews, just because the majority of the population agreed it was a good idea at the time. Now Germany has very strict constitutional protections of certain rights to make it very hard for the majority to violate the minority like that again. State rights act similarly, protecting the populations of individual states to some degree from the arbitrary whims of the majority.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      This wouldn't help Jews in WWII because Jews weren't grouped into a single German electoral region. If you spread 49.9% of the population evenly in a system where states vote rather than individuals, you've insured that this minority gets no representation.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      >Full democracy is what allowed Hitler to... What election are you referring to where the Germans democratically gave Hitler power? His best "fair" election results saw his party get ~35% of the vote, and he only got the largely ceremonial chancellorship through backdoor deals. By the time he became president nobody could consider the elections fair.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > isn't the way you keep them united is by promising the smaller ones that they won't be trampled on by the big ones? Yes, but in the US, at least, it's gotten to the absurd opposite where the minority is more or less assured a majority of votes. In order to avoid tyranny of the majority, we've more or less codified tyranny of the minority.
    - kodah 5y ago
      What's your evidence behind the statement that "the minority" is assured a majority of votes? Both Democrats and Republicans have won the electoral college and each of them throw a big rhetorical fit any time the other wins with it. At some point you have to accept that being equal doesn't always look fair in a micro vs macro sense of time. In the moment it doesn't look fair, when you look at the longer timeline they've had their share of elections. The system seems to be working as intended. It would be more helpful to describe what a state of affairs looks like that doesn't result in large population states, who already maintain the gift/grift of cultural hegemony, running the country.
rurp 5y ago
No, it makes votes in all states count equally. The current system makes votes in certain states orders of magnitude more valuable than votes in others.
kmeisthax 5y ago
The "intended" malapportionment to benefit small states[0] is a far smaller effect than the "unintended" effect of silencing local political minorities. If you wanted to retain the former, you could replace the Electoral College with just weighing votes cast in smaller states slightly more. Right now, neither large nor small states have a say in presidential elections at all - it's purely undecided states that play kingmaker, and it drastically warps the priorities of elected Presidents. [0] Which is also a problem. You know how everyone says the EU is undemocratic? It's for the same reason why we have an Electoral College - the whole "federal government represents states instead of people" thing.
- naniwaduni 5y ago
  > You know how everyone says the EU is undemocratic? It's for the same reason why we have an Electoral College - the whole "federal government represents states instead of people" thing. The grass sure is greener on every other side.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
simiones 5y ago
Isn't this already the case, except right now it's states like California or Texas that don't matter, since they always vote the same way anyway?
techsupporter 5y ago
> This also makes many states cease to matter. States are abstract political entities; it's people who matter. People are represented in the House by population (less so than they should be since we refuse to let the lower chamber grow in size) and in the Senate by state. The President of the United States represents every United States citizen everywhere on the planet. The holder of that office should be elected by a majority, preferably with some form of expression of ranking preference, of those voters regardless of what political entity they are currently in or connected to.
LocalH 5y ago
By that you mean the swing states? If so, good. Those states don't deserve a disproportionate weight into who we elect as President.