>Couldn't one argue 9/11 was the 'start' of the 21st century?
There was one major US political event in the 21st Century before 9/11 and arguably even lead to 9/11.
People tend to forget the 2000 Presidential Election between Gore/Bush. It seems common place for a candidate to lose the popular vote but win the Election, which was the case between Gore/Bush, but we hadn't seen that prior to Gore/Bush since 1888. Not to mention the shenanigans (electronic votes in swing states like FL going to the opposite candidate, entire truck loads of missing ballots)...it ended in a lawsuit and the SCOTUS deciding the election.
Politics/news coverage was set down a path of partisanship we have never recovered from and has only gotten worse. But to your point there is a chance 9/11 is stopped or never happens under Gore, and if 9/11 happened anyway, the response for sure would have been different and Iraq/Afghanistan wars likely never happen (perhaps an entire generation doesn't go off to the longest war in American history).
Gore would have also chartered a different course for the US environment wise, which will be a major effect felt in the future. So it will likely influence their thinking of the past.
> It seems common place for a candidate to lose the popular vote but win the Election, which was the case between Gore/Bush
I know the education of the average HNer is a bit higher than the average person off of the street. How is the electoral college perceived here? I've heard a great argument from a conservative friend: it prevents densely populated cities like LA + NY for speaking on the needs/wants of the entire country.
From an outside perspective, 'degressive proportionality' seems to be the term to think about more thoroughly [1]. It's valid that you neither want a minority dictating the terms for the majority nor a majority dominating a minority to such a degree that leaves the minority's voices unheard.
Like with anything on HN the EC is has its detractors and promoters.
The US has changed a lot since its inception and has structurally changed in profound ways. The 12th and 17th amendments, the civil war, and the rise of federal power. I think it's important to contextualize what the electoral college originally was versus what it current is. I think it's also very important to note that no method of self-government can accommodate every citizens's preferences in unison. So whether it's direct democracy or not some portion of the US voters will 'lose'.
Personally I think we're running head long into the consequences of a very strong federal government where the people desire a say in which (singular) person gets to 'run' the country. When a single person represents 50% (+/- a few % depending on EC or popular vote) of a nation of over 300 million I think we have deep systemic issues that neither the electoral college can stem nor can the popular vote fix.
> When a single person represents 50% (+/- a few % depending on EC or popular vote) of a nation of over 300 million I think we have deep systemic issues that neither the electoral college can stem nor can the popular vote fix.
Are you trying to say you wish you saw less political division in America (left vs right)?
I think political division is a symptom. With power concentrated in such a small portion of the population (one person) you end up with two coalitions who vie for power behind the person because no smaller group can affect change at that level.
What’s the implied harm in that, though? Given it violates the principle of “one person, one vote”, it needs justification beyond gesturing towards the idea of “it prevents bigger regions from bullying smaller ones”.
Maybe there is a dark history that has been avoided by the EC, but it seems incomplete to just just allude to it with a vague David and Goliath analogy.
>Given it violates the principle of “one person, one vote”
I believe that the less populated states would not have joined the union without the electoral college.
They may justifiably feel that it's still not in their interests to give it up.
EDIT: Fun fact: technically the states elect the president, the constitution does not specify a popular vote for that office, and there doesn't need to be one.
The federal government is set up to allow minority positions to roadblock majority positions unless you have an overwhelming majority (look at basically every big social issue of the past century and you will see this is how it has played out). The purpose of this is to prevent people from moving fast and breaking things at the federal level. This is all fine so long as states have decent autonomy. CA can have all the weed and abortions they want and KY can have all the guns and christian values they want and neither has to bother the other. Unfortunately we've put of a hell of a lot of authority at the federal level over the last 120yr or so and as a result government's ability to do things is handicapped because more of the doing things necessarily has to happen at a level where the system was designed to only allow things to be done when practically nobody could disagree with them.
I agree there can exist a tyranny of the slight majority. But we’re talking about the EC, which is used to choose the President. Given the enormous power of the executive branch (relative to most parliamentary democracies, for example), this actually causes a minority to gain positive power over the majority. Positive power here meaning power to direct action through executive orders and (most importantly) military action, not merely to veto law. But the executive also enjoys some veto power!
The EC and 2 senators per state system that the US uses seems to lead to a tyranny of the minority, especially if you consider that senate “rules” regarding filibustering, simple, absolute majorities are almost all conventions rather than laws or immutable procedures.
However, I do agree with your line of argument as it relates to constitutional amendments.
Edit: I said the executive could create law, when I meant to say they can direct action.
The people getting shafted by the EC deal should tell their congressmen and senators to take back some of that legislate authority they've dumped on the executive bureaucracy.
We're holding a knife by the blade and trying to cut with the handle and complaining it hurts. Of course it does. We're not using the tool properly.
We could also massively increase the number of states which would make the two points that all states get just for existing much less relevant (and have other benefits). Even if you just look at the house the number of people represented by any given person is massive compared to what it was 100yr ago let alone when the system was designed.
I agree to a large extent. I think EC should be part of a larger set of changes, but it is understood by a reasonable amount of the public, so it’s arguably the best starting point.
Compare with Brazil which does have a presidential system winning by popular vote, and I bet you will see a lot of reasons to not want the federal government with even more power than it already has.
I didn’t explain myself fully. For the US, I think a weaker executive would be good too. I don’t know much about Brazil’s political system. I know enough about Bolsonaro to dislike his positions and actions, but it seems like the coordinated conspiracy against Lula was a huge factor, https://theintercept.com/2019/06/17/brazil-sergio-moro-lula-.... Haven’t heard anything about first-past-the-post being an issue.
The issue is not with "first-past-the-post", the issue is about the huge divide between North/Northeast and Southeast/South of Brazil. I'd dare say is even worse of a problem that what the US has with Coastal States vs flyover country, or North/South.
The southern, richest states complain about the federal government taking out more than what is put in - which is not always true: a lot of the problems from southern states is that they can't manage their finances and are constantly asking the federal government to bail them out. The people in the poorer northern states complain about not getting money and help even though the they are the biggest beneficiaries from the Union - the problem ends up being that most of these resources are diverted and go to the pockets of the powerful families in those states.
And still, every election cycle everyone gets riled up over who is running for president when it would be better for everyone to look first to their cities and states. And while it certainly would be better for everyone if we could just reduce the power concentrated in the federal level, we have no single practical provision to do that. All that people can do is to root for their dog and realize that nothing ever really changes in a positive way.
Aside: Lula is no saint. Worse than that, he is the devil that fools you into believing his kind soul and uses it to rob you blind. He is the one that brought this polarization to 11 with the goal of consolidating more power. He is the one that was making the state ever bigger during a few good boom years. He talked loudly about "working for the poor" but his (and Dilma's) economic policies were favoring always a few exclusive group of an elite that was interested in keeping him in power. Cronyism was rampant. It was under his tenure that the endemic corruption became systemic: every government contract job had a kickback scheme which would fuel his party and his allies.
It was no conspiracy that put Lula in jail. He was the leader of what was essentially a kleptocracy who subverted all institutions to work in his favor. And none of that would be so easy to do if the people in the states had more control over what happens in Brasilia.
Going back in history, you wouldn't have one without the other. You can have "one man, one vote" and restrict the vote hypocritically to white landowning guys, but if you want to start weighting the votes of guys who own some of their fellow human beings higher than ordinary people, you need some kind of proxy.
That's the point. Otherwise highly populous states would steamroll smaller states, causing tremendous political tension and long-term could trigger a war.
The Senate is part of Congress, so “Congress and the Senate” is redundant and equivalent to just “Congress”.
And representation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (moreso in the latter case) is not equal by population, so that just explains one of the way the voices are unequal rather than contradicting that claim.
Right. I just wanted to point out there is no direct proportionality between votes and amount of representatives in Congress, so it makes no sense to talk about EC violating any principle.
"One person, one vote" never meant "one vote, one equal share of representation" would be a better way of saying it perhaps.
> One person, one vote" never meant "one vote, one equal share of representation"
That's exactly what “one person, one vote” means, but the only place in the US system that “one person, one vote” is applied is to the states as a consequence of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, on which basis state level structures very similar to the way the two Houses of Congress are set up under the federal Constitution have been struck down as violations of the principle, and, thereby, the Constitution.
Yes, not only I am fine with it, I am trying really hard to find a place where the amount of votes linearly translates to the amount of power a representative has.
Every parliamentary system with barrier clauses are out. Every district-based election is out, etc, etc. Swiss' cantons, maybe?
It may also translate into: representatives grouping into parties. Which parties get the more votes globally, get to have proportionally as many seats, which they distribute to the elected members of the group.
I am failing to understand the point you are trying to make.
You just described most parliamentary systems. There is still one PM that concentrates the executive power.
Also, most parliamentary elections (that I know of) have some form of barrier clause. This is explicitly done to avoid pulverization of power. In Germany, your vote needs to be along with a minimum of 5% of the population to actually count. There is no "one vote, one share of power" as well.
So what gives? You asked me if I was "fine with it". I am saying that I am fine with it because I don't know of any alternative that has implemented anything better. If you know of any place with a functional government, as big as the USA and with a "one vote, one share of power", by all means do share.
In a democracy, rules to elect an executive power (where you need one decisive direction within a framework) are obviously not the same as those to elect the controlling powers of this executive power -- among which parliaments, where you need a fair representation of all the citizens. That is ok.
I'm fine with a low barrier clause for keeping unorganized/low stakes ones out; that does not prevent proportionality in the final representation distribution though.
My point is that a system where a representative college does not reflect the full vote across the country has a deep design issue. See an earlier comment from someone: "it's a different kind of equality".
> I'm fine with a low barrier clause for keeping unorganized/low stakes ones out; that does not prevent proportionality in the final representation distribution though.
I wouldn't say that 5% is a "low barrier clause", actually quite the opposite. That means, e.g, in a room of 20 people, every lone/dissenting voice gets completely shut out of the conversation.
> My point is that a system where a representative college does not reflect the full vote across the country has a deep design issue.
For you, it's an issue. For me it is a feature. The USA is too big, too diverse and too uneven of a country to try to apply universal policies and expect good results everywhere. It makes sense to balance this by bringing more power to the states and not push it away to the federal level.
It's an issue to me, probably my French background. :)
The USA didn't look so... indeed, uneven or fractured, before Trump's appearance in politics. I guess I should have travelled across there several years ago. I sincerely hope you can collectively get out well of this mess.
Also, hopefully not the point here, but the "this country is too big/different to try..." reminds me of several conversations I've had with people from certain countries, justifying their authoritarian regime.
Also, in a room of 20, if one person cannot bring and share into their voice at least a second person among the 19 other ones, they won't get any result either by being part of the assembly.
That's were you build friends and teams before elections to propose your platform. Alone, you can't act much.
If you think Trump has anything to do with USA's current social fabric, you either are too young or not really paying attention. Terms like "Deep South", "coastal elites", "flyover country", "Rust Belt" and many others were not invented in 2016 or 2008.
> authoritarian regime
There is nothing authoritarian about the system. It is just different in the sense that it was designed to put more weight to the states instead of the union in the balance of power.
In my view, much more authoritarian/totalitarian was Napoleon's obsession with centralization and uniformity, to which I guess you take no issue? ;)
> Alone, you can't act much
You are moving the goal posts. We were talking about representation according to one's votes, not about the efficiency of its parliament.
With current districting and gerrymandering frameworks a minority of rural voters have many, many times the electoral weight of someone in a metropolitan area so I have trouble coming up with something that is fair without overweighting one group over another. I see the problem with giving small parts of the country a monopoly practically, but when I see far more in common among constituents between Eastern WA and upstate NY than I see between Seattle and NYC I can’t help but feel that rural areas are far more united than cities are.
>but when I see far more in common among constituents between Eastern WA and upstate NY than I see between Seattle and NYC I can’t help but feel that rural areas are far more united than cities are.
Do they actually have that much in common or is it out-group homogeneity?[1]. They would probably say all city dwellers are the same but obviously people from NYC don't have that much in common with people from SF beside some lifestyle commonality.
I’ve lived in various states all around the US and traveled for work often and honestly when I’m in most cities now I can’t tell them apart too terribly much besides native accents, weather, architecture, and some landmarks - the chain and corporate restaurants homogenized each place so much it’s a blur of random logos for myself. I can say the same for various rural areas I’ve visited though in a different way except there’s different chains (Dollar General being the one common logo) and naming conventions for run down local places that seem like Madlibs.
I see the need for systems like the electoral college, but I think it needs some tweaks. Between both the Senate and the Presidency tilting quite hard towards rural state concerns, it seems unbalanced to me.
I am not pro abolishment of the EC, I think the system has some merit but that we could tweak it in any number of ways to let urban states have a bit more say. I'm a bit sick of feeling unheard by politicians 30 odd years into my life.
I don't know about perception, but in practice the electoral college has decided 2 elections in the past 20 years in favor of the Republican candidate when the Democratic candidate won the popular vote.
I think generally people want to do away with it (my guess is the would be reflected slightly higher in HN than the general population).
It makes land more important than people, which shows the heritage of power in landowners. I personally think that is a bad thing now - landowners get enough power from the value of their land. However, landowners, ie the ones with the power advantage, see differently. Funny how that works.
Densely populated states, but that is exactly the main point for keeping it.
To compare with the EU, imagine if elections for the EU parliament were proportional to the populations of the member countries and how much that would favor the larger ones
> The allocation of seats to each member state is based on the principle of degressive proportionality, so that, while the size of the population of each country is taken into account, smaller states elect more MEPs than is proportional to their populations.
Anyway, it's not a direct comparison; MEP elections correspond to the House of Representatives, and there's no figure with the same centrality as the US President.
Most importantly, parties in the EU are primarily local and campaign on a local basis. There are trans-party coalitions like the EPP, but identification with them is weak. Whereas you can sample random Americans from across the country and find they identify as (and even are publicly registered as??) Democrat and Republican, and with a strong consistency across the country as to what those stand for.
The flip side, though, is that it allows a few people in MO to tell large swathes of people on the coasts what to do.
Personally, I wish we could do two things:
1. Remove electoral college. 1 vote = 1 say no matter where you live. The fact the the senate is 2-per-state already gives plenty of weight to lower-pop states.
2. De-emphasize the role of the president. In particular, curtail the power of executive orders and the unfettered ability to use the military. It's 2020, the age of kings is over, and we don't need anyone trying to act like one.
I think this would not have, for instance, curtailed a lot of the positive things Obama had done, but would have definitely stopped Trump from doing a lot of the bad stuff.
Incidentally, I think over the next 50 years we're going to see the huge cities spread out a bit. Cities will still be where most people live, but I think we'll see more mid-sized cities (more places in the 250k-500k-ish pop range) having attractive employment options and good amenities.
You do realize that (1) and (2) are at odds, right?
Yes, the increase reliance on federal government and increasing grab of power from any president is a problem. But if you remove the EC you'll get the bigger states pushing for their interests and use the federal government even more as a proxy, consequently giving even more power and responsibilities to it.
There was one major US political event in the 21st Century before 9/11 and arguably even lead to 9/11.
People tend to forget the 2000 Presidential Election between Gore/Bush. It seems common place for a candidate to lose the popular vote but win the Election, which was the case between Gore/Bush, but we hadn't seen that prior to Gore/Bush since 1888. Not to mention the shenanigans (electronic votes in swing states like FL going to the opposite candidate, entire truck loads of missing ballots)...it ended in a lawsuit and the SCOTUS deciding the election.
Politics/news coverage was set down a path of partisanship we have never recovered from and has only gotten worse. But to your point there is a chance 9/11 is stopped or never happens under Gore, and if 9/11 happened anyway, the response for sure would have been different and Iraq/Afghanistan wars likely never happen (perhaps an entire generation doesn't go off to the longest war in American history).