4 ms·

You mean like actual voter representation, instead? They're not trading anything, the compact is one where all participating states agree that the only fair el

You mean like actual voter representation, instead? They're not trading anything, the compact is one where all participating states agree that the only fair election is one where the candidate with the most votes should win, and so all of them have agreed that their electors will vote for the candidate who wins the most votes at the national level, regardless of what the local result is. As it should be, for a national vote.

rvnx 2y ago
Oh yes, I totally agree with you I think this Electoral College system is absurdly complicated (and to be back to the topic, causes issues like predicting the outcome). I shown this article because it is interesting from a "technical" perspective to see how the States are discussing together to figure out a backdoor, instead of doing what is the "right" thing: sitting on a table and amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  There’s no particular reason to call it a backdoor or not the “right” way.
  - rvnx 2y ago
    a "hack", or a "workaround" is more appropriate perhaps, rather than a backdoor. It reminds me of technical debt. Instead of rewriting the original buggy code, we add one more feature and we certainly don't change anything to the original code. So instead we have: "This is the logic, we do this A and this B, but oh well, anyway it's C" Simpler is better, especially on crucial things such as elections.
    - kiba 2y ago
      It is horrendously difficult to amend the constitution. We would need much greater societal consensus to be make it easier to amend the constitution. Changing the presidental vote to a popular vote would be the first step to doing that.
    - christianqchung 2y ago
      Getting 75% of states to support something is simpler than getting 50% of electoral college votes to agree on supporting the more popular candidate? Constitutional amendments are anything but simple.
- krapp 2y ago
  Amending the Constitution is a metaphysical impossibility at this point. The Electoral College exists to give outsized political power to rural states, and they aren't going to agree to give that up.
  - rvnx 2y ago
    Isn't it what California and other states are doing with the NPVIC ? "Ok you don't want give up your power, and to amend the Constitution, so screw you, we will decide without you"
- ars 2y ago
  I used to think getting rid of the Electoral College was "obviously" the right thing. Then I learned more about how the US works, and realized that the electoral college is actually its strength! Without it cities would completely dominate rural areas, like completely. Those rural areas would essentially have zero voice. Think about it: do you want a US where only a couple states control the entire thing? And I don't mean like today where some states are predictably red or blue (i.e. where only the swing states "count") - in the current state red vs blue alternate positions on capital hill, so all those states eventually get their voice heard. In a world without the Electoral College the rural states get zero voice. None. I don't think the US would survive this.
  - krapp 2y ago
    The Electoral College only affects the election of the President, who does not (despite popular misconception) actually run the government the way a CEO runs a country, rather he represents one of three equal and (ostensibly) separate branches of government. The Electoral College doesn't determine the distribution of representatives in Congress, nor the election of judges. Obviously rural states would not cease to have a voice in government if the President were elected by popular vote - which is in essence what the Electoral College is designed to prevent - because most Presidents have been and yet rural states somehow persist, pass legislation and maintain political power.
  - sapphicsnail 2y ago
    Why should someone in a rural area get a bigger say than someone in an urban one? California has more people than ~15 least populous states combined. Also, all the rural red counties in CA effectively have no voice in the presidential election. It's a dumb, outdated, arbitrary system.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > Think about it: do you want a US where only a couple states control the entire thing? You mean like the US we have, where the entire race is focused on 7 states?
sokoloff 2y ago
The compact has the mechanism and effect you describe, but you seem to have added your own editorialization as to the motivation: "participating states agree that the only fair election is one where the candidate with the most votes should win." That's not part of the bill in the one state that I reviewed (MA), nor in the text describing the compact generally. [Voters in] States participating may in fact believe that multiple types of fair elections exist, but that they merely prefer this particular one.

rvnx 2y ago

Oh yes, I totally agree with you I think this Electoral College system is absurdly complicated (and to be back to the topic, causes issues like predicting the outcome). I shown this article because it is interesting from a "technical" perspective to see how the States are discussing together to figure out a backdoor, instead of doing what is the "right" thing: sitting on a table and amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College.

bee_rider 2y ago
There’s no particular reason to call it a backdoor or not the “right” way.
- rvnx 2y ago
  a "hack", or a "workaround" is more appropriate perhaps, rather than a backdoor. It reminds me of technical debt. Instead of rewriting the original buggy code, we add one more feature and we certainly don't change anything to the original code. So instead we have: "This is the logic, we do this A and this B, but oh well, anyway it's C" Simpler is better, especially on crucial things such as elections.
  - kiba 2y ago
    It is horrendously difficult to amend the constitution. We would need much greater societal consensus to be make it easier to amend the constitution. Changing the presidental vote to a popular vote would be the first step to doing that.
  - christianqchung 2y ago
    Getting 75% of states to support something is simpler than getting 50% of electoral college votes to agree on supporting the more popular candidate? Constitutional amendments are anything but simple.
krapp 2y ago
Amending the Constitution is a metaphysical impossibility at this point. The Electoral College exists to give outsized political power to rural states, and they aren't going to agree to give that up.
- rvnx 2y ago
  Isn't it what California and other states are doing with the NPVIC ? "Ok you don't want give up your power, and to amend the Constitution, so screw you, we will decide without you"
ars 2y ago
I used to think getting rid of the Electoral College was "obviously" the right thing. Then I learned more about how the US works, and realized that the electoral college is actually its strength! Without it cities would completely dominate rural areas, like completely. Those rural areas would essentially have zero voice. Think about it: do you want a US where only a couple states control the entire thing? And I don't mean like today where some states are predictably red or blue (i.e. where only the swing states "count") - in the current state red vs blue alternate positions on capital hill, so all those states eventually get their voice heard. In a world without the Electoral College the rural states get zero voice. None. I don't think the US would survive this.
- krapp 2y ago
  The Electoral College only affects the election of the President, who does not (despite popular misconception) actually run the government the way a CEO runs a country, rather he represents one of three equal and (ostensibly) separate branches of government. The Electoral College doesn't determine the distribution of representatives in Congress, nor the election of judges. Obviously rural states would not cease to have a voice in government if the President were elected by popular vote - which is in essence what the Electoral College is designed to prevent - because most Presidents have been and yet rural states somehow persist, pass legislation and maintain political power.
- sapphicsnail 2y ago
  Why should someone in a rural area get a bigger say than someone in an urban one? California has more people than ~15 least populous states combined. Also, all the rural red counties in CA effectively have no voice in the presidential election. It's a dumb, outdated, arbitrary system.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > Think about it: do you want a US where only a couple states control the entire thing? You mean like the US we have, where the entire race is focused on 7 states?

sokoloff 2y ago

The compact has the mechanism and effect you describe, but you seem to have added your own editorialization as to the motivation: "participating states agree that the only fair election is one where the candidate with the most votes should win." That's not part of the bill in the one state that I reviewed (MA), nor in the text describing the compact generally. [Voters in] States participating may in fact believe that multiple types of fair elections exist, but that they merely prefer this particular one.