Use the Electoral College the way it was intended | Hacker News Reader

Use the Electoral College the way it was intended

change.org

9 pointsbtcboss24 comments

> Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.

The Electoral College is in the constitution. The popular vote has never been a method for electing the president by design.

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

Exactly. Hamilton (and most founding fathers) distrusted direct democracy. A more reasonable petition would be to go the other way -- get states to elect real Electors instead of making the presidential race pseudo-populist.

Not sure I follow what you are arguing for. But what I am trying to say is that the EC is designed to protect us from people EXACTLY like trump. That is its purpose. It has nothing to do with Hillary getting the popular vote, although that does add to the argument.

If you had asked Hamilton his opinion on a woman or someone of African descent, what do you think he would have said? Even ignoring that, I suspect the founding fathers would have been aghast at the system of professional politicians. They would have similarly been aghast at Trump's personality and behavior, but I suspect his business experience would have been considered a positive.

You do realize a Trump supporter could have made exactly the same argument had the situation been reversed? That the Electoral College was designed to protect us from dishonest, cronyist politicians? Who decides that the EC should be protecting YOUR candidate?

My argument is that I would like to see Electorates become real Electorates and that blaming them for Hillary's loss is just sour grapes.

The Electoral College is in the constitution to stop a demagogue from taking office.

I don't particularly feel strong about this petition, but I don't think the argument "because it's the constitution" is a good one. I can imagine the constitution being outdated for certain reasons and I don't think it's a big deal to adapt to the changes.

"I don't particularly feel strong about this petition, but I don't think the argument "because it's the constitution" is a good one."

I respectfully disagree. I think the fact that it is in the Constitution should give anyone pause about changing it. That's not to say that it should not (or could not) be changed, but this isn't just something that an Executive Order by the current President could change. This is a Congressional responsibility.

This petition is absurd and pointless.

You're right, I agree. This petition is pretty absurd, especially because the election is over (it would've had more substance if it was a non-election year). Just wanted to point out that "because it's the constitution" shouldn't be a discussion-stopper.

I think it's a bad idea to change the constitution just because an election didn't turn out the way some people wanted it to.

and? The constitution has had loads of dumb things in it that have had to be changed.

Americans seem to worship this 250 year old piece of paper. They put in an amendment process for good reasons.

Exactly. So let's change via amendment, not via a petition website. Line up 2/3 of congress to propose, and then 3/4 of the states to ratify.

It's a daft system you have, but its what you have

If people are worried about a Donald Trump presidency because they're afraid he'll break norms, tear down established systems, and use his elected status to remove any independent/non-populist institution, it is not a good idea to start with this.

1. She won a plurality of the popular vote. Yes, it's winning but it's not even a majority.

2. You don't get to just toss out rules because you lost. 3 days ago people were shitting on trump for this type of rhetoric.

3. The fact that the electoral college exists fucks up the popular vote. A republican has no voice in California, and a democrat has none in Texas. Having it be an actual popular vote would change voter behaviour pretty drastically.

4. The electoral college is not a system which values votes equally. A vote in California is worth less than a vote in wyoming. Some people like that because of the idea of tyranny of the majority. Some people say that's ridiculous and a popular vote is the only good system. Figure it out for yourself, I say that geographic based representation is why we have the senate. Of course I like the democrats and the coastal population centers would be a massive boost.

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

6. Fight for an amendment. Ranked voting in a popular vote based presidential election? Guess what not you can vote for bernie and johnson first before your vote finally goes to Clinton, instead of being whiny and ruining things for the rest of us.

A different system would have leaded to different outcome. You can't expect voters behaving the same when the rules change.

Also, Arrow's theorem is valid for any system

Exactly. Texas and California were pretty much in the bag from the get-go; I'm sure if winning the state was irrelevant, more voters may have come out.

I really can't see this happening. There's no precedent and it would lead to serious civil unrest.

Fathers! Keep Donald "Grab 'em by the pussy" Trump away from your daughters.

If we want the electors to vote with their conscience, and not blindly accept who won what states (2 candidates coming out of conventions is absolutely NOT what the forefathers intended) then perhaps Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders still have a very good chance? Otherwise it sounds like the petition is calling for keeping and trusting the system as it has always been, except at the very last moment.

It's worth noting that for much of the night, per the media, Trump had a 1m+ popular vote advantage. If it had turned the other way (Clinton victory w/ Trump popular vote win) people would be screaming if the Trump camp called for this.

It has nothing to do with popular vote. It has to do with qualifications. EC is intended to keep out unqualified candidates -> As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

And if that were to happen (Clinton victory w/ Trump popular vote win), trump would say the election was rigged and fuel fires to an uprising.

This assumes Clinton would meet the standard while Trump would fail it. Between Whitewatergate, her husband's impeachment hearings, Benghazi, enabling her husband's womanizing, the improprieties with the Clinton Foundation, and more, such a standard may make her ineligible as well. I think being a bad person isn't what the founders had in mind.

I also think they would have been appalled at the idea of someone who's political achievements cannot be disentangled from who they married. After all, the founding fathers weren't exactly fans of royalty.

If we want to apply intent, then the question is who would our next president be, Cruz or Sanders?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com