Hacker News Reader

Comment by koolba | Hacker News Reader

Complaints about the size or make up of the court, the electoral college vs popular vote, or really any other issue based on the current state of affairs would have significantly more weight if the people complaining weren't complete hypocrites.

Case in point, the electoral college was touted as the best thing since sliced bread prior to the 2016 election by Democrats because they were confident in the "blue wall" of the rust belt. After Trump sprayed WD-40 on in it and loosened up those voters, Democrats cried foul in unison solely because they lost.

If Clinton had been elected in 2016, she'd have gotten at least two SCOTUS picks and they'd all be loving the electoral college. But she didn't so here we are. Elections have consequences.

View on HN

> If Clinton had been elected in 2016, she'd have gotten at least two SCOTUS

Don't be so sure. At least three Republican Senators in 2016 (Ted Cruz, John McCain, and Richard Burr) suggested leaving Supreme Court vacancies unfilled during Clinton's entire term(s) if she were elected.

Reforming the electoral college is not new at all, or partisan, but that's not to say that it's not political. Here are some links regarding historical[0] and present[1] efforts to reform the apportionment of elector votes:

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

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

> the electoral college was touted as the best thing since sliced bread prior to the 2016 election by Democrats because they were confident in the "blue wall" of the rust belt.

In the time that I've been eligible to vote for president, the Democrats have won the popular vote 80% of the time, yet won the Presidency 40% of the time. And the Presidents we've gotten that didn't win the popular vote: they've been terrible, bottom of the barrel presidents. So it's not just the disparity in voting vs. outcome, it's the garbage that we've ended up with in the White House as a result.

> In the time that I've been eligible to vote for president, the Democrats have won the popular vote 80% of the time, yet won the Presidency 40% of the time.

The President is not elected by popular vote, so this is a meaningless statement.

> And the Presidents we've gotten that didn't win the popular vote: they've been terrible, bottom of the barrel presidents.

The people who voted for them would probably disagree with you.

> So it's not just the disparity in voting vs. outcome, it's the garbage that we've ended up with in the White House as a result.

You stating an opinion doesn't make it so.

> The President is not elected by popular vote, so this is a meaningless statement.

It's merely a statement of fact.

> The people who voted for them would probably disagree with you.

And I'm sure that their mothers love them very much, too, but that's irrelevant.

> You stating an opinion doesn't make it so.

Of course not. The wreckage of their administrations—the hundreds of thousands of dead, the economy in freefall, our position of leadership in the world in tatters—makes it so.

The economy isn't in freefall, but if it were, it would be because of statewide lockdowns. States that impose fines or take away the license to do business if they dare open. In my state, the governor forced infected elderly back into nursing homes--a population of people who are at 3x or more risk than the general population.

Honestly, if you think that Trump, a person I find stupid, despicable, and generally bankrupt, has any responsibility for those things then appeals to reason are simply not going to work on you..

> The economy isn't in freefall

I was discussing several administrations; the current economy isn’t in freefall but it was after President George W. Bush.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com