Hacker News Reader

Comment by bhalp1 | Hacker News Reader

Also, going with the electoral college suppresses overall voter turnout in states that are "locks" like California, New York, Oklahoma, etc.

If I live in California, I'm less incentivized to show up for the election because I think of it as a lock. Obviously I should still show up to vote elsewhere on the ballot, but I may not because I won't influence the election.

If we were measuring by popular vote, turnout would be a lot higher and the outcome would, likely, be a better representation of the country.

View on HN

Turnout would certainly be higher, but it's not clear that it would be a "better" representation of the country.

The electoral college distribute power, to some degree, based on geography. Geography is correlated with a large number of other "diversities" of American culture, from race, population density, to industry, to global warming risk, etc... Switching it to a straight majority would take power away from all of these subsets of society.

This election, it seems, it was "white rust belt" Americans that decided the election. In Gore vs Bush, it was Florida. Next time, it will be something else. It's all highly imperfect and somewhat random, but I see danger in solidifying power in what essentially will be people who live in cities.

As it stands, power is solidified in a dozen or so swing states, which make up about 20% of the country's population and aren't particularly representative. The electoral college isn't distributing power, it's concentrating power in a few fairly arbitrary places.

  In Gore vs Bush, it was Florida.

No, it was any state that Bush won. For example, had Gore won his own home state of TN, FL wouldn't have mattered. But any state shifting to Gore would have been enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com