Hacker News Reader

Comment by sampo | Hacker News Reader

> I’m not from the US but I can see that this is yet another effect of two-party politics rotting your country.

United States is perhaps the oldest continuously existing democracy [0], in has existed 244 years, and most of that time (about 200 years) it has been a two-party system. I don't think it's the two-party system that is responsible for the rotting now. Something else is going on.

[0] Well, we can debate how to define a democracy (an interesting and educational debate), and who is oldest still existing depends on the definition. But a good case can be made that it's the US.

View on HN

Very debatable.

Democratic traditions in other countries long predate even the existence of the US; it wasn't the first with universal suffrage; it had a troubled history even after that till at least the 1960s, even before we get to any contemporary problems.

I don't know there is a legitimate claimant on the "first democracy" title, or even if we are there yet, but unlikely the US.

> first with universal suffrage

So depending on the definition of "country", the oldest existing democracy is either Finland (1906-) or Norway (1913-)?

Finland: Universal suffrage from 1906, as an autonomous grand duchy of the Russian Empire. Independent country from 1917.

Norway: Independent country. Universal suffrage from 1913.

Or maybe, depending on the definition of "suffrage": New Zealand: Women can vote from 1893, women can run as candidates for some positions from 1919, Women can run for all position from 1941.

Yeah, my view also is it's likely one of the smaller, less heralded countries. New Zealand a good contender. For the pre-universal democracies, Iceland has a parliament going back a thousand years.

> New Zealand a good contender

You don't give much weight for women to be able to be lawmakers themselves? As long as women have the right to vote male candidates to an all-male parliament, the suffrage is universal enough for you?

That's a good question (which highlights the difficulty of the definition), but yes, on reflection I think that it is up to those represented to determine who represents them (including constraints), not for us to engineer it for them looking backwards. So a useful (but imperfect) delineation is the year that most adults were allowed the vote.

Clearly, in this case everybody being given that power of determination from 1893 has worked out well for them on the female representation front looking at current stars on the global leadership stage.

> Something else is going on.

Money in politics probably as well.

The US isn't a democracy. Check the results of the 2016 election if you don't believe me....

> The US isn't a democracy. Check the results of the 2016 election

Almost every country has some unevenness in apportionment. Outside of some microstates that have only one electoral disrict, by your definition no country is a democracy today.

Which is on purpose. We are a representative republic based on democratic principles, explicitly structured to avoid the “mob rule” tendencies of direct democracies. Which doesn’t make the Electoral College any more sensible, but here we are ¯\_(?)_/¯.

Who is the “mob” in this? The citizen majority?

The electoral colleges have their criticisms but they prevent the largest cities from determining the vote for everyone.

No. Without the Electoral College, one vote cast in a coastal city would be equal to one cast in rural Wyoming. Instead, because Wyoming has more Electoral ballots per person than larger states like California and Florida, a vote cast in Wyoming is "worth" about three times as much as one cast in those larger states.

A concern about removing the Electoral College is candidates won't spend time campaigning in more remote, less populous states. A) We have broadcast media and the Internet, you don't need to spend a lot of time in those states. B) Getting rid of the Electoral College doesn't mean getting rid of the state caucus and primary systems, there would still be plenty of in-state campaigning to win those (though typically not by an incumbent president).

> Instead, because Wyoming has more Electoral ballots per person than larger states like California and Florida, a vote cast in Wyoming is "worth" about three times as much as one cast in those larger states.

Anyone truly irked by this arrangement is free to move to Wyoming.

Wyoming is the least populous state. Of course they will have more electoral ballots per person, that was my argument. Less populous state will have more "votes" (electoral ballots) compared to the largest states.

You wrote, "they prevent the largest cities from determining the vote for everyone."

Why should people living in a less populous state have more influence on the outcome of an election than people in more populous states (or cities)?

If people living in large cities have more influence it's not because of where they live but because there are more people. More people, more influence; the Electoral College dilutes this principle of fairness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com