
The Sneaky Plan to Subvert the Electoral College for the Next Election - tpush
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUX-frlNBJY
======
classicsnoot
NaPoVoInterCo is a terrible idea. The idea of states giving up even more
sovereignty is silly bordering on ridiculous. CGP Grey has all the outward
indications of being a smart person, but the blase way he approaches this
subject is unsettling as i think it reflects how many of the "nominally smart"
view this issue.

The term popular vote is very deceptive. If the only vote that mattered was
the national election of the chief executive, it might be useful. But if
voting is viewed holistically, as in local, state, and federal, there is no
such thing as a popular vote. The vast majority of US citizens do not fully
participate, and it is a large minority that participate in the national
selection.

Further, many people love to point out Hillary gaining more popular votes in
2016, but they never seem to point out that this was almost solely due to
California. Subtract California voters, and the competition's outcome makes
perfect sense. This is precisely what the Electoral College was built to do.
Just because 1 quarter of the entire nations social welfare beneficiaries
decide to congregate in one place and all vote the same way does not mean they
deserve to pick the president.

I have to wonder why the video didn't even touch the genesis of the
NaPoVoInterCo. Just glancing at the map at the top of this link will tell you
everything you need to know about both the politics and the purpose of this
scheme:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)

This is a plan to turn the US into a one party state. This guy explains why
that is not only a good thing, it is inevitable. After you read his piece, you
should look up his net worth and where and how he lives:
[https://medium.com/s/state-of-the-future/the-great-lesson-
of...](https://medium.com/s/state-of-the-future/the-great-lesson-of-
california-in-americas-new-civil-war-e52e2861f30)

I fear there are dark times ahead. At least CGP Grey will be very entertained
as he watches us collapse from London, a city completely inoculated from
demographic shift, political infighting, and terrible consequences for poor
decisions.

~~~
sam0x17
So basically, what you're saying in a nutshell is that if you live in a rural
area, your vote should count hundreds of times more than that of someone
living in a heavily populated area. Sounds like a really good way to get to
where we are today with congress.

How this stuff got into the constitution (or whatever) in the first place
baffles me. The electoral college literally makes where you live determine how
much your vote is worth. How is that not a huge violation of everything this
country is supposed to stand for?

Put another way, it's like we care more about land than we do about people.
Wtf? It's We the People not We the Vast Tracts of Essentially Empty Land.

~~~
classicsnoot
What is this country supposed to stand for? Leaning on that trope to buttress
a subjective opinion is a paper thin argument. This country is not supposed to
stand for one thing. The State system was intended to allow for multiple
interpretations of religion, culture, and identity. The federal system was
intended to keep the State system balanced and safe. The rural areas deserved
more influence because their contribution to the long term continuity of the
country was something that couldn't be measured by population alone.

Shocking to your sensibilities and education level though it may be, land has
always been more important to stability, peace, and prosperity than individual
people. It is only in hyper consumer states (like the US coastal cities) where
people find themselves so immensely important that they thing the Individual
is the highest value commodity in society. They are programmed to believe this
from a very early age, as well a falsely assumed omniscience about values,
ethics, and truth. The vast majority of humans on the planet are far more in
touch with their actual value relative to the system as well as their
capabilities in that system. This is why most humans pack up and leave when
the system is against them on both counts, as opposed to digging in and
fighting back.

None of this would be baffling (in terms of the Electoral College) if you took
the time to read the primary sources regarding it. I can understand how it
would be surprising and baffling if you are operating off of third hand,
highly subjective editorializing.

~~~
sam0x17
No state is in any position to try to leave the union at this point for a
variety of reasons. If we rule that out, what utility does "keeping
underpopulated states happy" provide, exactly?

The state system wasn't really intended to do anything, rather it was a
byproduct of the fact that the founding fathers had to appease the colonies
into wanting to unite as a larger entity without losing their local identity.
It was merely a concession.

So electoral votes are largely a legacy feature from a bygone era where we had
to worry about states trying to leave the union over minor grievances.

Combine that with the fact that cities and coastal states in general brain-
drain rural areas, and you realize it's probably a dumb idea to give the
brain-drained regions of the country the most decision-making power. The
electoral college does just that -- it selectively gives vastly more voting
power to the less intelligent regions of the country.

That said, it would also be wrong (both morally, and in the ill-advised sense)
to have a meritocracy where high intelligence means your vote counts more.
Since intelligence largely tracks with socioeconomic status because of access
to different opportunities, this devolves to your classic rich noblemen making
all the decisions situation with its obvious pitfalls.

So if you are trying to come up with an effective and fair system for electing
a leader, sticking with the popular vote makes a lot more sense than
affirmative action for places where no one wants to live.

The stupidity behind the electoral college is reflected at the local level in
the stupidity of the system that allows for gerrymandering -- if there were
rules in place forcing political districts to all be equal in terms of the %
of the total population of the state that they represent, politicians couldn't
manipulate the map for partisan purposes (at least as much as they do now).

As for the founding fathers' intentions, who can say? There was nothing really
special about them anyway, they were more a product of their time than
anything else. Now we are stuck with their mess.

