Comment by akiselev | Hacker News Reader

Comment by akiselev | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

My entire family feels a terrible sadness today. We immigrated here to the United States from Russia almost 20 years ago (to the day) and after all the immigration bullshit we were finally eligible for citizenship this year. My dad took his oath and got his US passport literally weeks before the election and this is what he gets for his first vote: a divisive demagogue beat a corrupt career politician. There are no words to describe our disappointment, both at the choices and the result.

For those that are unhappy with the results of this election, there is something you can do! I implore you to write, call, and otherwise pester your state legislators and your governors to pressure them to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [1]. This is an interstate agreement approved by the Justice Department that activates when states with 270 or more electoral college votes sign it (by passing state legislation that implements the compact). When it activates, all of the states that signed it will, from that point on, allocate their votes for the presidential candidate that won the national popular vote, essentially destroying the electoral college. Already, the states that signed the compact have a total of 160 electoral college votes and legislation is in the works for Michigan and Pennsylvania, which would bring the total to over 180. Already a third of all electoral votes are part of this compact!

Take it from someone who has spent two decades on the sideline: you are not powerless. So few people make their voices heard that every voice counts when you're one of 50 or 100 state senators representing a state of a few million. With Trump's divisiveness front and center this is it. For the first time since the Voting Rights Act we have a chance to fundamentally change American democracy and we can do so in a way that cannot be obstructed by conservative states or dismantled by conservative Supreme Court justices.

Even if you are happy with the results of this election, I beg you to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's time we started to reform our electoral system and restore some of the legitimacy it has lost in the last few decades.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters...

Destroying the Electoral College would be one more step in destroying the federal nature of the Unites States. Perhaps you think that's a good thing, but I think it's a terrible idea: I think that we should be more, not less, federal. What works for the people of Massachusetts is not what works for the people of California, or the people of Wyoming.

I'd like to see state legislatures selecting electors again.

Also, the Constitution states, 'No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.' Has Congress consented to this interstate compact?

> Destroying the Electoral College would be one more step in destroying the federal nature of the Unites States. Perhaps you think that's a good thing, but I think it's a terrible idea: I think that we should be more, not less, federal. What works for the people of Massachusetts is not what works for the people of California, or the people of Wyoming.

The electoral college is a net-negative contribution to the federal nature of the US because it allows a tiny, extremely unrepresentative minority to decide for the whole country while eroding the legitimacy of the executive branch, a legitimacy that is a key component of our system. Californians deciding policy for MA or WY due to sheer size is bad but that's how democracies and republics are supposed to work. A single precinct deciding for the entire nation is a perversion of the process that does nothing but destroy faith in our electoral process.

Besides, the executive branch is largely irrelevant to American federalism. We can eliminate the top layer of the executive branch today and the US government would still be as federal as ever because that's how our state and national legislatures are structured. The president has little power over the day to day of the average citizen and all of the hierarchies that do have that power are headed by people confirmed by the Senate.

> Also, the Constitution states, 'No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.' Has Congress consented to this interstate compact?

This issue is actively being debated by constitutional scholars precisely because of the popular vote compact. The general consensus is that Congressional consent is needed only if the interstate agreement is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" (emphasis mine), which was a precedent set by the Supreme Court in the early 1800s. That last part means that Congressional approval is only necessary if the agreement threatens the superiority of the federal government. Furthermore, a state's right to choose how its electoral votes are allocated is a right enumerated in the Constitution and the only power Congress has is to set how many electoral votes each state gets.

All of that is irrelevant anyway because there is no actual treaty or official agreement due to how the legislation is structured. Every state that has joined the compact has legislation to the effect of "All of the electoral votes for this state will go to the winner of the national popular vote if and only if similar legislation is active in enough states to tie 270 or more electoral votes to the national popular vote." No one from the federal government can stop them from doing this.

Edit: s/appointed/confirmed

> The electoral college is a net-negative contribution to the federal nature of the US because it allows a tiny, extremely unrepresentative minority to decide for the whole country while eroding the legitimacy of the executive branch, a legitimacy that is a key component of our system. Californians deciding policy for MA or WY due to sheer size is bad but that's how democracies and republics are supposed to work. A single precinct deciding for the entire nation is a perversion of the process that does nothing but destroy faith in our electoral process.

But that's nonsense: no single precinct determines anything, any more than a single precinct within a popular-vote election would. Each state votes, and the states send electors, and those electors as a whole elect the President. Obama didn't win because one precinct voted for him; he won because thousands of voters across dozens of states voted for electors pledged to him. Likewise Trump.

And likewise Bush. Regardless of Ohio or Florida, plenty of people across the nation voted for electors pledged to him.

Yes saying a single precinct is a bit hyperbolic but claiming that all states have an equal hand in electing a president is also nonsense. The entire presidential election is decided by a few states that are poorly representative of the country. Just look at where presidential candidates campaign: The vast majority of their time is spent in less than a dozen states, who have a total population less than that of New York and California combined, just because the race in those states is neck and neck.

I am in full support of federalism but its purpose is to strike a balance between national, regional, and local representation & interests. When the system elects a candidate who lost the popular vote by hundreds of thousands that isn't a balance, that's small states getting power they should only have in the senate. The executive branch isn't bicameral so applying federalism to it is just depriving the majority of their choice. The national and state legislatures is where our federalism belongs, not in our executive branch.

> The vast majority of their time is spent in less than a dozen states, who have a total population less than that of New York and California combined, just because the race in those states is neck and neck.

Those are the swing states, which are the most politically-balanced — this means that they are the most-centrist states. Campaigning to win them is campaigning to win the centre.

> The executive branch isn't bicameral so applying federalism to it is just depriving the majority of their choice.

Why should 50.01% get their choice and 49.99 suffer? Why not build a system which encourages centrism and attempting to appeal to all? That's the one we have.

Note that no candidate got a majority of popular votes in the election.

> The national and state legislatures is where our federalism belongs, not in our executive branch.

That makes no sense: the federal executive is the federal executive, and should be just as federalist as the rest of our federal government (hence my support for returning to state legislatures appointing electors, and getting rid of the popular vote altogether).

Sometimes I get mad about the electoral college, but I always cool down. Because at the end of the day: this election was a tie. We use the electoral college to break ties. Maybe it's not ideal. Maybe popular vote would ve fairer. Maybe a coin flip would be fairer.

But really, I'm sad that Bush tied with Gore. I'm sad that Trump tied with Hillary. And I want to live in a country with better candidates, less party politics, and more decisive victories for my values.

From that perspective, the electoral college isn't really the problem, so I let it be.

I'm so sorry. Maybe you can use your unique perspective to shine a light on how backwards Trump's support of Putin and Putinesque policies is.

It's not just backwards, it is an existential threat to the United States and the rest of the developed world. We are at a critical time when Russia is only getting bolder and bolder, despite economic hardships and sanctions, and we need to once again provide balance against their power. Unfortunately, the entire military industrial complex was rapidly retooled in the 90s and the defense/intelligence apparatus lost all expertise on dealing with Russia. This expertise is important because Russia has historically placed a lot of importance on human intelligence, espionage, and geopolitical manipulation with long term operations. Any sort of conflict (military or otherwise) with Russia will leave much of the US establishment with their pants down because they are used to manipulating small countries without strong leaders and bombing civilians, not fighting a proxy war against a major power with a comparable (human) intelligence apparatus.

So not only is the US bureaucracy entirely unprepared for such a confrontation, but the US electorate just chose a failed real estate mogul turned reality TV show star to go head to head against a former Cold War operative that trained and worked for the KGB/Stasi. And go head to head they will. You can bet Putin will exploit the Trump presidency for as much as he can and there's little we can do to stop it other than voting Trump out of office next time.

I don't quite share your bleak assessment of the US IC's ability as far as Russia goes, but otherwise spot on. And it doesn't matter anyway if you don't trust any of your advisors or intelligence reporting.

Im curious, why not? I don't doubt the abilities of the US/five eyes intelligence community, especially in SIGINT, but they forgot how to face a remotely comparable adversary in a proxy war. They need operatives who are used to thinking ten steps ahead of a KGB trained spy, not radical Islamic guerillas.

I think the best analogy is the infamous wargame the US armed forces carried out in the 2000s. The blue team had an aircraft carrier and other cutting edge weaponry while red team had only basic equipment available to insurgents. The high tech weaponry worked just fine in Afghanistan but when faced against a comparable adversary (red team was led by an equally experienced general), the entire blue team was ripped to shreds by a few dozen men and some speed boats. Obviously the western intelligence apparatus is superior to Russia's but it has spent the last 20+ years focused on a completely different type of adversary. It would be like using an aircraft carrier to fight in the middle of the Himalayas.

That's true, in a shooting war with a peer we haven't had much practice since Kosovo. However, neither has Russia, and while they have been putting on a show of force in Syria, that is basically them at almost max deployment and force projection capabilities. They don't have the money or manpower to fight a prolonged shooting war. John Schindler put it best, Russia is "Mexico with ICBMs". The ICBM part is what should scare us all, especially if they have a stooge in the White House.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com