Comment by classicsnoot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by classicsnoot | Hacker News Reader

NaPoVoInterCo is a terrible idea. The idea of states giving up even more sovereignty is silly bordering on ridiculous. CGP Grey has all the outward indications of being a smart person, but the blase way he approaches this subject is unsettling as i think it reflects how many of the "nominally smart" view this issue.

The term popular vote is very deceptive. If the only vote that mattered was the national election of the chief executive, it might be useful. But if voting is viewed holistically, as in local, state, and federal, there is no such thing as a popular vote. The vast majority of US citizens do not fully participate, and it is a large minority that participate in the national selection.

Further, many people love to point out Hillary gaining more popular votes in 2016, but they never seem to point out that this was almost solely due to California. Subtract California voters, and the competition's outcome makes perfect sense. This is precisely what the Electoral College was built to do. Just because 1 quarter of the entire nations social welfare beneficiaries decide to congregate in one place and all vote the same way does not mean they deserve to pick the president.

I have to wonder why the video didn't even touch the genesis of the NaPoVoInterCo. Just glancing at the map at the top of this link will tell you everything you need to know about both the politics and the purpose of this scheme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

This is a plan to turn the US into a one party state. This guy explains why that is not only a good thing, it is inevitable. After you read his piece, you should look up his net worth and where and how he lives: https://medium.com/s/state-of-the-future/the-great-lesson-of...

I fear there are dark times ahead. At least CGP Grey will be very entertained as he watches us collapse from London, a city completely inoculated from demographic shift, political infighting, and terrible consequences for poor decisions.

So basically, what you're saying in a nutshell is that if you live in a rural area, your vote should count hundreds of times more than that of someone living in a heavily populated area. Sounds like a really good way to get to where we are today with congress.

How this stuff got into the constitution (or whatever) in the first place baffles me. The electoral college literally makes where you live determine how much your vote is worth. How is that not a huge violation of everything this country is supposed to stand for?

Put another way, it's like we care more about land than we do about people. Wtf? It's We the People not We the Vast Tracts of Essentially Empty Land.

What is this country supposed to stand for? Leaning on that trope to buttress a subjective opinion is a paper thin argument. This country is not supposed to stand for one thing. The State system was intended to allow for multiple interpretations of religion, culture, and identity. The federal system was intended to keep the State system balanced and safe. The rural areas deserved more influence because their contribution to the long term continuity of the country was something that couldn't be measured by population alone.

Shocking to your sensibilities and education level though it may be, land has always been more important to stability, peace, and prosperity than individual people. It is only in hyper consumer states (like the US coastal cities) where people find themselves so immensely important that they thing the Individual is the highest value commodity in society. They are programmed to believe this from a very early age, as well a falsely assumed omniscience about values, ethics, and truth. The vast majority of humans on the planet are far more in touch with their actual value relative to the system as well as their capabilities in that system. This is why most humans pack up and leave when the system is against them on both counts, as opposed to digging in and fighting back.

None of this would be baffling (in terms of the Electoral College) if you took the time to read the primary sources regarding it. I can understand how it would be surprising and baffling if you are operating off of third hand, highly subjective editorializing.

No state is in any position to try to leave the union at this point for a variety of reasons. If we rule that out, what utility does "keeping underpopulated states happy" provide, exactly?

The state system wasn't really intended to do anything, rather it was a byproduct of the fact that the founding fathers had to appease the colonies into wanting to unite as a larger entity without losing their local identity. It was merely a concession.

So electoral votes are largely a legacy feature from a bygone era where we had to worry about states trying to leave the union over minor grievances.

Combine that with the fact that cities and coastal states in general brain-drain rural areas, and you realize it's probably a dumb idea to give the brain-drained regions of the country the most decision-making power. The electoral college does just that -- it selectively gives vastly more voting power to the less intelligent regions of the country.

That said, it would also be wrong (both morally, and in the ill-advised sense) to have a meritocracy where high intelligence means your vote counts more. Since intelligence largely tracks with socioeconomic status because of access to different opportunities, this devolves to your classic rich noblemen making all the decisions situation with its obvious pitfalls.

So if you are trying to come up with an effective and fair system for electing a leader, sticking with the popular vote makes a lot more sense than affirmative action for places where no one wants to live.

The stupidity behind the electoral college is reflected at the local level in the stupidity of the system that allows for gerrymandering -- if there were rules in place forcing political districts to all be equal in terms of the % of the total population of the state that they represent, politicians couldn't manipulate the map for partisan purposes (at least as much as they do now).

As for the founding fathers' intentions, who can say? There was nothing really special about them anyway, they were more a product of their time than anything else. Now we are stuck with their mess.

> Subtract California voters, and the competition's outcome makes perfect sense.

Ah yes. Subtract the most populous state in the union by far, which happens to lean democratic, and suddenly democrats aren't as popular.

Makes perfect sense.

That is a very appropriate user name. Why should the most populous state out of 50 states get to decide how the other 49 go about their business? State lines are borders, which are arbitrary delineations within a given region according to many. What makes California so important? Is it the money potential, which implies the wealthy should rule (AKA aristocracy)? Is it the fact that it is 12% of the total population?

It also doesn't happen to lean democratic. That is the product of years of manipulation, lobbying, and cultural shift. Regardless, the point of the EC is to balance out population centers and rural areas as their contributions are different in terms of the Nation. It is an apples to oranges situation. Leaving aside the fact that California is an absolute disaster in terms of social and ecological management by their government, there is no logic outside of Marxist dialectical approach that makes a coherent argument for why they should get to pick the president.

I don't actually know what you're arguing for so I'm not going to engage any of your points. Power is distributed according to a set of rules spelled out in the Constitution, so I have no idea what you're talking about with California being so important or whatever.

I'm just making fun of the argument that the voter landscape looks different if we omit state X. No shit. Omit Texas and you get a different picture. Omit new York and you get another picture still. This kind of argument is the political equivalent of p-hacking.

The realities of Winner Take All is that the US regularly omits wide swathes of people from the vote. Anyone that votes republican in New Jersey or California is effectively removed from the equation. Stating that power is distributed based on the constitution is naive, given what the constitution says taken in context with how things are.

Omit Iowa and/or North Dakota and it doesn't change all that much. Both sides of this same argument are precisely the point of the Electoral College. It handicaps high density populations and skews toward rural areas. It is electoral affirmative action.

Yes, that is how the electoral college in FPTP works. What's your point?

> Anyone that votes republican in New Jersey or California is effectively removed from the equation.

Their votes would count as much as anyone else's if the presidency were decided by popular vote. Why should all the Republicans in these blue states be censored by the Electoral College when electing the president?

You said earlier that every Californian's vote should be lesser than everyone's vote in smaller and redder states, right? But this censoring of Republicans is a direct consequence of this affirmative action.

And what happens, with the Electoral College in place, if someday the Democrats gain majority in some small states with amplified voting power? The USA would become a one-party state.

>absolute disaster

Citation needed. 5th largest economy ON EARTH. By that metric, every other state is a disaster.

But.. whatever helps you sleep at night.. I guess.

If GDP is the only metric you are going to consider, then the US and China are doing just fine. But, and i don't think this is a stretch, there may be some other factors to consider. For California in particular, i suggest you look up what percentage of the population pays the taxes the state runs on, how many of the state's population subsist on social welfare benefits, and what how much federal assistance ameliorates state debt concerns. I posit that California as a stable state is a house of cards, both economically and ecologically speaking.

I have an idea then, lets break up california into 6 smaller states [0]. oh wait, that would give the formerly californian democrats more federal power through the senate... woops.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias

I absolutely support that for two reasons. 1) all six would not be monolithic in their values, temperament, and concerns. 2) the point of my position is not to have more opportunities for my way of thinking to prevail.

How about statehood for DC and Peurto Rico? Oceana too. As far as Cali goes, i think the plan would be to break Cali into as many pieces as you could with each new state retaining a major city (Sacremento, San Fran, San Diego, LA, idk Cali cities that well beyond those but you get the point). to make it a perfect plan, chuck in mathematically defined congressional districts to avoid the stupid game of gerrymandering.

interesting extra piece, i believe Texas has gone on record saying that if California ever broke up, it would also break up into smaller states. goes along the logic of maintaining what Texas lawmakers believe to be republican constituencies in senate. how that would play out considering texas has been purple AF recently is anyones guess. but in general I also support the idea of breaking up states into smaller bodies.

Do you even understand how the Govt works ? The president should be looking at the entirety of the US not just big states or small states.

Its the senate that is used as the equalizer. Small states have just as much representation as all other states.

I think the president should be looking out for the people.

If the democrats were to become the single party of a 1 party state, you better bet the currently happening conflict between progressive / socialist and moderate / market democrats would result in a new 2 party system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com