9 ms·

Yeah because then the entire country will only have to care about what NY thinks

dlp211 4y ago
No. I don't even know how you get to this idea. First of all, there is only one national election, you still have your Representative and 2 Senators in addition to your State, County, and Local governments. Second of all, there are more Republicans in New York and California then in a significant amount of the middle states combined. The idea that NY or California has some singular voice that will be force upon you is just a ridiculous concept. The country clearly leans slightly center left as a whole, but we are trending hard right right now and that is a recipe for disaster and the electoral college is in large part to blame.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  It’s what I call the Democratic wobble. We’ve been trending left for fifty years. Maybe it’s time to go the other way for awhile. And hand some power back to the states, where it belongs.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    "We’ve been trending left for fifty years." Depends on the topic. Gun rights, for example, have gone decidedly to the right. Few people now remember that Ronald Reagan signed some significant gun control legislation without losing support of his voters.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      Not really. In the late '50s, when I was a teenager, I lived in a rural area. I had my own rifle, and so did my friends. I also bought a 22 revolver and carried it around the country in the early '60s and never thought twice about doing that. In the '60s, high school students carried rifles on the NYC subway while going to target practice. Try doing that today. So, I'd say there has been a lot of pressure to move the window on gun regulation to more restrictive over the last fifty years. I don't think it's done any good at all relative to reducing crime committed with guns. Law abiding gun owners have always had low incidence of gun infractions compared to, say, the police. The real problem is not enforcing the gun laws we have had for years. Chicago is a prime example: very restrictive laws, but very few convictions for gun offenses, which are frequent. Why is that?
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        With all respect, the late '50s and early '60s are a long time ago. I was thinking about more recent developments. As of today, there is almost half a billion of guns in civilian possession in the US, and the # of open carry and concealed carry jurisdictions has grown massively. I would say that the lowest point for gun rights US-wide was around the Columbine school shootings, and that the trend changed quite decisively since them. Legislation like that has no chance of passing today.
        wrycoder 4y ago
        We were talking about “trending left in the last fifty years”. 1972 was fifty years ago, so I was setting the stage by describing the situation in the preceding decade.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        In the 60s, most Southern states were no-issue when it comes to concealed carry, and most of the rest were may-issue. Even before the recent ruling, there were 8 states that were may-issue; the rest were shall-issue or no permit required.
        wrycoder 4y ago
        Yes, and that was to keep guns away from blacks. Justice Thomas has discussed this in his SCOTUS opinions. It’s quite revealing and well worth reading. SCOTUS rulings are a lot more readable than you might think. They are often quite colorful. You quickly learn to skip by the boilerplate to find the dissenting opinions, which are near the end. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/
    - chmod600 4y ago
      Gun rights/control didnt used to be a "right-wing" topic.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    i can understand not wanting power to be centralized in the hands of a faraway federal govt. but i dont understand the fetish of states rights. why not city rights or county rights. or heaven forbid maybe even individual rights
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      - dang 4y ago
        We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle—that's not allowed here, as you know, regardless of what politics/ideology you're battling for. It's also not cool to use a bunch of different accounts to post like this, or to get around moderation restrictions. We eventually ban the related accounts as well. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      It's a balancing act between individual rights and ability of the society to govern itself without disintegrating (at which point nobody would have any rights). But, yes, states are just as artificial as US as a whole. Municipalities feel like they're the lowest level organization that is actually somewhat organic and interconnected.
      - dlp211 4y ago
        Individual rights are far more likely to be recognized at a Federal level than at the State level. The whole "states rights" non-sense is about the ability to restrict what or how other folks live.
        int_19h 4y ago
        Do you have any basis for this assertion? I find that my state constitution is far better than the federal one in most regards.
  - dlp211 4y ago
    Democratic wobble is about shifting political demographics. In other words, the majority of the country wobbles between center right and center left. This isn't that.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      Sure it is, just in a longer time scale.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
DSMan195276 4y ago
This is just ignoring basic math. As it is right now, it's drastically easier to win a national election with far fewer voters in the most populous states than it is to win a direct election - and in each of those populous states, with the electoral college you only need to win a plurality, meaning you can ignore up to half the state. Consider it another way - to win the electoral college, you only need to win the 10 most populous states with a plurality. To win the popular vote, you still need to win basically the exact same set of 10 states but now you would need to win every vote in them (which is functionally impossible). We also have to agree that even with the EC candidates don't care about the majority of the country. Any voter in a state that goes consistently opposite to them is made completely irrelevant, with no point to trying to reach out to them. If the EC was gone suddenly all those voters actually get a voice.
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  Basic math suggests that a place with more population would have an outsized say that overrides a place with lesser population (and generally with very different ideas of what is important to them). You want representatives to represent the populace, look no further than the House of Representatives. The Senate is disproportionately represented on purpose. It was designed this way, on purpose.
  - DSMan195276 4y ago
    > Basic math suggests that a place with more population would have an outsized say that overrides a place with lesser population Keep in mind we're talking about the EC, which makes the problem you're describing _worse_. Like I mentioned, the EC is still largely dependent upon state population, so it doesn't actually force you to win more states or even a substantially different set of states compared to the most populous ones. But since almost all states give out EC votes based on plurality vote, it means winning those population centers you talking about _does_ actually override the votes of the entire rest of the state. In NY, ~37% of the state voted for the Republican in 2020, but 100% of the EC votes went to the Democrat. You're complaining that NY would get an outsized say if the EC was gone, but are ignored the fact that due to the EC cities like NYC are _already_ getting an outsized say in the presidential election. They benefit from getting to effectively control all the EC votes given to their state, even though a substantial portion of that population doesn't even agree with how they are proportioned. Same thing with California and various other states. If your concern is instead just that small states won't get represented during the presidential election, then I hate to tell you that they're already completely ignored. I think switching to a direct vote could actually help them get more say, as the proportion of the vote you get from those states could be relevant. > You want representatives to represent the populace, look no further than the House of Representatives. The Senate is disproportionately represented on purpose. It was designed this way, on purpose. Sure, but the comment above was specifically about the EC, as was mine. The EC is a completely different beast from the Senate, and arguably was not designed to work this way anyway.

No. I don't even know how you get to this idea. First of all, there is only one national election, you still have your Representative and 2 Senators in addition to your State, County, and Local governments. Second of all, there are more Republicans in New York and California then in a significant amount of the middle states combined. The idea that NY or California has some singular voice that will be force upon you is just a ridiculous concept. The country clearly leans slightly center left as a whole, but we are trending hard right right now and that is a recipe for disaster and the electoral college is in large part to blame.

wrycoder 4y ago
It’s what I call the Democratic wobble. We’ve been trending left for fifty years. Maybe it’s time to go the other way for awhile. And hand some power back to the states, where it belongs.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  "We’ve been trending left for fifty years." Depends on the topic. Gun rights, for example, have gone decidedly to the right. Few people now remember that Ronald Reagan signed some significant gun control legislation without losing support of his voters.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    Not really. In the late '50s, when I was a teenager, I lived in a rural area. I had my own rifle, and so did my friends. I also bought a 22 revolver and carried it around the country in the early '60s and never thought twice about doing that. In the '60s, high school students carried rifles on the NYC subway while going to target practice. Try doing that today. So, I'd say there has been a lot of pressure to move the window on gun regulation to more restrictive over the last fifty years. I don't think it's done any good at all relative to reducing crime committed with guns. Law abiding gun owners have always had low incidence of gun infractions compared to, say, the police. The real problem is not enforcing the gun laws we have had for years. Chicago is a prime example: very restrictive laws, but very few convictions for gun offenses, which are frequent. Why is that?
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      With all respect, the late '50s and early '60s are a long time ago. I was thinking about more recent developments. As of today, there is almost half a billion of guns in civilian possession in the US, and the # of open carry and concealed carry jurisdictions has grown massively. I would say that the lowest point for gun rights US-wide was around the Columbine school shootings, and that the trend changed quite decisively since them. Legislation like that has no chance of passing today.
      - wrycoder 4y ago
        We were talking about “trending left in the last fifty years”. 1972 was fifty years ago, so I was setting the stage by describing the situation in the preceding decade.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      In the 60s, most Southern states were no-issue when it comes to concealed carry, and most of the rest were may-issue. Even before the recent ruling, there were 8 states that were may-issue; the rest were shall-issue or no permit required.
      - wrycoder 4y ago
        Yes, and that was to keep guns away from blacks. Justice Thomas has discussed this in his SCOTUS opinions. It’s quite revealing and well worth reading. SCOTUS rulings are a lot more readable than you might think. They are often quite colorful. You quickly learn to skip by the boilerplate to find the dissenting opinions, which are near the end. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/
  - chmod600 4y ago
    Gun rights/control didnt used to be a "right-wing" topic.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  i can understand not wanting power to be centralized in the hands of a faraway federal govt. but i dont understand the fetish of states rights. why not city rights or county rights. or heaven forbid maybe even individual rights
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    - dang 4y ago
      We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle—that's not allowed here, as you know, regardless of what politics/ideology you're battling for. It's also not cool to use a bunch of different accounts to post like this, or to get around moderation restrictions. We eventually ban the related accounts as well. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    It's a balancing act between individual rights and ability of the society to govern itself without disintegrating (at which point nobody would have any rights). But, yes, states are just as artificial as US as a whole. Municipalities feel like they're the lowest level organization that is actually somewhat organic and interconnected.
    - dlp211 4y ago
      Individual rights are far more likely to be recognized at a Federal level than at the State level. The whole "states rights" non-sense is about the ability to restrict what or how other folks live.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        Do you have any basis for this assertion? I find that my state constitution is far better than the federal one in most regards.
- dlp211 4y ago
  Democratic wobble is about shifting political demographics. In other words, the majority of the country wobbles between center right and center left. This isn't that.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    Sure it is, just in a longer time scale.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

DSMan195276 4y ago

This is just ignoring basic math. As it is right now, it's drastically easier to win a national election with far fewer voters in the most populous states than it is to win a direct election - and in each of those populous states, with the electoral college you only need to win a plurality, meaning you can ignore up to half the state. Consider it another way - to win the electoral college, you only need to win the 10 most populous states with a plurality. To win the popular vote, you still need to win basically the exact same set of 10 states but now you would need to win every vote in them (which is functionally impossible). We also have to agree that even with the EC candidates don't care about the majority of the country. Any voter in a state that goes consistently opposite to them is made completely irrelevant, with no point to trying to reach out to them. If the EC was gone suddenly all those voters actually get a voice.

jimmygrapes 4y ago
Basic math suggests that a place with more population would have an outsized say that overrides a place with lesser population (and generally with very different ideas of what is important to them). You want representatives to represent the populace, look no further than the House of Representatives. The Senate is disproportionately represented on purpose. It was designed this way, on purpose.
- DSMan195276 4y ago
  > Basic math suggests that a place with more population would have an outsized say that overrides a place with lesser population Keep in mind we're talking about the EC, which makes the problem you're describing _worse_. Like I mentioned, the EC is still largely dependent upon state population, so it doesn't actually force you to win more states or even a substantially different set of states compared to the most populous ones. But since almost all states give out EC votes based on plurality vote, it means winning those population centers you talking about _does_ actually override the votes of the entire rest of the state. In NY, ~37% of the state voted for the Republican in 2020, but 100% of the EC votes went to the Democrat. You're complaining that NY would get an outsized say if the EC was gone, but are ignored the fact that due to the EC cities like NYC are _already_ getting an outsized say in the presidential election. They benefit from getting to effectively control all the EC votes given to their state, even though a substantial portion of that population doesn't even agree with how they are proportioned. Same thing with California and various other states. If your concern is instead just that small states won't get represented during the presidential election, then I hate to tell you that they're already completely ignored. I think switching to a direct vote could actually help them get more say, as the proportion of the vote you get from those states could be relevant. > You want representatives to represent the populace, look no further than the House of Representatives. The Senate is disproportionately represented on purpose. It was designed this way, on purpose. Sure, but the comment above was specifically about the EC, as was mine. The EC is a completely different beast from the Senate, and arguably was not designed to work this way anyway.