Hacker News Reader

Comment by baddox | Hacker News Reader

That isn't the alternative. The alternative is to let the sum of each equal individual vote determine the outcome. Metro areas don't vote. Neither do farms. People vote. Just like most of us presumably agree that gender, ethnicity, etc. shouldn't affect the impact your vote has, I don't think that the amount of land you own or the population density of the area you live in should affect the impact of your vote.

View on HN

This is how you get the Roman/Parisian mobs that were the downfall of the Roman and French Republics. All you have to do is promise the mob everything and they'll give you the support to suppress the provinces. The Founders had the Roman example to draw on, as well as Venice's devolution into an urban oligarchy.

With the electoral college al you have to do is appeal to the mob in the swing states. Then you give that select group of voting Americans the ability to suppress the rest of the population. How is that any better?

Yes, you can just appeal to a smaller mob which has the same political influence as larger mobs.

These things aren't static- the South (and the major religions) used to be solidly Democrat, California gave us Reagan, etc. This changed in my lifetime and I'm not that old. You start taking your base for granted,you end up wondering how you lost.

You need to review your Constitutional history. The Constitution mandates that the president is elected by the states, via electors who are selected in each state "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." It's not a direct popular vote and never has been.

I am well aware of how it is. I just think it ought to be different.

I don't see the parent comment implying the US had ever used popular vote, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Furthermore, the Constitution can change. That's why there's amendments; quite a few have already gone through, in fact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com