Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's questionable whether Cambridge Analytica actually succeeded in changing many votes. And even counting that targeted advertising, the losing side in the 2016 presidential election spent far more in ads. So apparently ads aren't that effective.

The Electoral College is what really violates the principle of "one human, one vote".




> It's questionable whether Cambridge Analytica actually succeeded in changing many votes.

Changing a vote is hard. They only needed to make someone vote (or not) to make a difference, which is much easier to achieve


CA behavior doesn't have to be connected to specific votes in order to have been harmful. There is a constellation of operators behind the name "Cambridge Analytica," and almost all of them still have jobs doing what they were doing three years ago. NBD?


>The Electoral College is what really violates the principle of "one human, one vote".

No it really does not if you understand what a Republic of States is. We are the United States of America. A republic of states. Not "America the great democracy" like people seem to want it to become.

A federalist nation of independent states is what the constitution created, and what we should be protecting. There are many things that would improve our elections (Wyoming Rule, No Gerrymandering, Proportional Electoral College, Instant Run Off Voting, and returning the Senate to the States just to name a few) but a national popular vote for President is a TERRIBLE idea, and would rip this nation apart and in the long run likely result in another civil war.


Oh I fully understand the Federalist argument however the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness. Times change. The notion that eliminating it would cause another civil war is ludicrous.


How has it outlived its Usefulness

let me Guess you live in CA, NY, or Texas?

Because with out the Electoral College, the rest of the states do not matter.. the Elections will be decided by about 5 states in the union, the very thing the Electoral College was designed to prevent and is every much just as relevant today as it was when there were only 13 colonies

As to civil war.... You do understand that most of the private guns in this nation are in the Red States, and currently if National popular vote is enacted the Blue States will effectively control government at the national level (which is most likely why you support it, chances are you are a democrat and are tried of the Republicans having any power so if NY and CA can control the nation that would be grand for you) . Which will most likely mean extreme pushes to the Authoritarian left including Draconian gun control laws and seizures... Which will bring about all out civil war

//For the Record I an neither R or D, I am small L libertarian.


> Because with out the Electoral College, the rest of the states do not matter.. the Elections will be decided by about 5 states in the union

This doesn't really make sense: without the Electoral College, states as entities don't decide anything. You could say the people in five states will decide the (presidential) election, but there's nothing special about them other than population density. A vote in California would be exactly the same as a vote in Wyoming.

> if National popular vote is enacted the Blue States will effectively control government at the national level

Do the Legislative and Judicial branches not exist? Eliminating the Electoral College has no effect on the former whatsoever, and it affects the latter only insofar as the Legislative branch fails to be a check on the Executive for the purpose of nominating judges.

True, Democrats would have an edge in presidential elections — but only because the general population leans Democratic. If Republicans want to win elections, maybe they should have to convince more people to support them, rather than essentially gerrymandering the presidency with a system that divides the country up into arbitrary districts and allocates votes thereto?


>Do the Legislative and Judicial branches not exist?

Not really no, not as a check on power anymore anyway

Congress has given most of their authority to the Administrative State via vague open ended laws that are more complex than a Tolstoy novel that allows the same law to "mean" opposite things when used against the citizens by the Administrative state

The Judaical Branch has stopped following the constitution as written instead injecting "world opinion" and other non-sense into their decisions

>Eliminating the Electoral College has no effect on the former whatsoever, and it affects the latter only insofar as the Legislative branch fails to be a check on the Executive for the purpose of nominating judges.

False and False. The President has all kinds of power today over both, the president should not but eliminating the Electoral Collage will make that situation worse not better as it is often the Democrats that give power to the Executive then bitch when republicans use that power when a republican is elected. Most of the powers Trump is using today where given to the President by Democrat controlled congresses

>You could say the people in five states will decide the (presidential) election

Thank you Captain Nit Pick, it is clear that is what I meant from the context of the conversation

> but there's nothing special about them other than population density.

That is what is "special" about them, Urban area's have different needs and politics that Rural area's and Urban area's should not be allowed to disenfranchise rural area's which is exactly that you are advocating for.

Might as well just end the very concept of Statehood, elminiate states all together and just have 1 National Government with zero state governments. I am sure you would be fine with that as well.

We are a federalist nation for a reason, and today with the Electoral Collage a vote in CA means exactly the same as a Vote in WY. Each state chooses who they want to to be President, then if that person whens the approval of enough STATES they become president. National Popular vote eliminates the Federalist style of national government.


> today with the Electoral Collage a vote in CA means exactly the same as a Vote in WY.

Depending on party. In California, which is reliably Democratic in presidential elections, a Democrat vote counts and a Republican vote doesn't. In Wyoming, which is reliably Republican in presidential elections, a Republican vote counts and a Democrat vote doesn't. Thus, the same vote means exactly the opposite in California as in Wyoming.


No, if the national popular vote is enacted, the majority opinion among citizens will control the government at the national level. States will have nothing to do with it, that's the point of a popular vote.

It baffles me that many Americans are ok with the current rule-by-simpsons-paradox that we have.

Because of the electoral college, combined with the cap on the size of the house, less populous states are overrepresented in the house, Senate, and presidency. That's not what the founders intended, and it's a mistake that should be corrected.


Clearly you did not read my original post, as I am not opposed to reforms I am opposed to eliminating the Electoral College

Better reforms include

* Enacting the Wyoming Rule

* Eliminating Gerrymandering, I want to use the other non political division to choose congressional districts. Counties, Postal Codes, Phone Area Codes something else

* Proportional Electoral College: Each Congressional District will vote for the President instead of Each State

* Instant Run Off Voting: First past the post needs to end.

* returning the Senate to the States

These are just a few reforms that I support


Yep, the left narrative around the Electoral College seems dangerous to me as well.

I think any argument against the Electoral College has to also include an argument against the Senate. Or is two senators/state acceptable?

The founding fathers clearly considered the effects of having large population centers and attempted to account for it in the House.

A system with no representation for the smaller states would lead to exactly the same scenario that caused the U.S. to be founded. Popular vote would always decide in favor of urban centers and rural citizens would be neglected yet expected to pay taxes.


That's...not what led to the US being founded. The cries were "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation without over representation" for a reason. Subjects in the US has no representation in the British parliament, not approximately the number they should have given population, but none. If they had, about 25% of the house of commons would have been US elected representatives, none were.

Please don't rewrite history to support your political opinions.


My argument made an appeal to the emotional state behind both situations.

> Popular vote would always decide in favor of urban centers and rural citizens would be neglected yet expected to pay taxes.

The point is that disenfranchisement of a large group of people would lead them to seek action against the government. You could pick the Civil Rights Movement if you think the Revolution doesn't fit the bill for some reason.


> My argument made an appeal to the emotional state behind both situations.

Yes and my point is that the comparison isn't apt.

> The point is that disenfranchisement of a large group of people would lead them to seek action against the government.

You mean like how those in urban centers are disenfranchised under the current system? "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" seems to apply.


The cries where far most than just taxation, this idea that taxation and taxation alone was the sole reason we violently rebelled agaist the Britsh empire shows a complete lack of understanding of American History.

Taxation was a reason, but even just a basic reading of the Declaration of Independence shows there are "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism"

As such it was "their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"


Yes, the main issue was a complete lack of political representation.

I don't think I said anything about the sole reason being taxation. What I said was that limited political representation was not the issue, a complete absence was. I'm glad we agree on that.


Personally, I think far more important than having or removing the electoral college is getting rid of the notion that it matters who is president. Our country makes the president a king. I think it's time we switch our tax structure around to make states fucking rich and make the federal system more of a communication network for the states. States would collect taxes only, and donate to the feds for a national military. The donation amount is optional.


That's why the US Congress has two chambers, House and Senate.

As in other federal countries, it makes sense to elect one purely by popular vote, the other by giving each state equal representation.

To pass a law, you'd then need 50% of people and 50% of states to support it.

This is a simpler system for elections, and keeps the power of people and states more balanced.

e.g. Germany uses a very similar system (Bundestag being elected by popular vote, Bundesrat being chosen by each state).


It used to have then we ratified the 17th amendment which turned the Senate way from being representative of the State, and turned it into a second "peoples house"


>As to civil war.... You do understand that most of the private guns in this nation are in the Red States

Given the amount of guns in general circulation, I am not sure this calculus really matters. There is kind of a limit to how many guns you can hold at once.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: