Hacker News Reader

Comment by ng12 | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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 I can imagine the constitution being outdated for certain reasons and I don't think it's a big deal to adapt to the changes.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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com