The Systemic Racism of the Electoral College, Revisited | Hacker News Reader

The Systemic Racism of the Electoral College, Revisited

charlespetzold.com

9 pointskencausey23 comments

Are the European Comission and the European Council "systematically racist" too, since the vote of a Maltese matters more to determine the makeup of these institutions then the vote of a German, and more black people live in Germany then in Malta?

Maybe a little bit.

Wikipedia defines the term as "policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organization that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race". So if black people are at all disadvantaged due to the EU system, it would seem that by definition the system is at least a little systemically racist. Probably not enough to warrant changing though based on the tradeoffs involved (unless there are other reasons for changing it).

It's even worse than that! The "systemic racism" extends even to the European Parliament!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...

The section on 'handicapping the high-population states' should have included a mention of the Reapportionment Act of 1929, and how that effects the distribution of electoral votes.

As a liberal in Wyoming, there are a few things that are missed here.

1) Outside of years with close ratios in the legislative bodies, no one cares about those two votes because they are tiny percentage with large geographic distances. Small groups only really have power when it comes down to tiebreakers.

2) in my lifetime the Democratic party abandoned the state, providing little support and due to closed primaries with no national support we have to register as Republicans to have any ability to help prevent a total fringe right wing local and state government that provides a negative feedback loop with this issue.

3) The US is a federation of independent states and the rural states were mostly developed due to slavery state fights.

4) I am quite sure that gerrymandering has a far larger impact on disenfranchisement and could possibly be addressed with less risk of civil war vs trying to upend the myths of our countries foundation than suggesting we should violate what in mythology is supposed to be a federation of independent states.

5) Rural and urban poor have more in common than differences, if either of the major parties realized this and took on a long term effort to demonstrate this they could start to tear down the barriers that were intentionally put in place to divide these groups going back all the way to Bacon's rebellion.

Neither party has any interest in this because it would be a long term effort.

> The US is a federation of independent states

That changed with Appomattox and the subsequent enactment of the 14th Amendment.

You have been misinformed by people with a tenancy to change history to fit their political whims, but there was never a right of secession under the constitution and New York had to remove the one that they wanted to add.

"Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-00...

Madison also called this out.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.h...

In typical modern language;

A _Federation_ is a union of _partially_ self-governing provinces, it is not a _conFederation_ or a union of sovereign states.

But even our original government before the constitution was titled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union"

Those who push the Pseudo-historical Lost Cause ideology and deny slavery was the principal cause of the secession, often use the 'states rights' dog whistle, but there never was a right for secession for anything like a perceived risk to chattel slavery.

Sure there are lots of arguments of where one could argue where the boundaries in powers should exist, but the fact that secession is not mentioned in the constitution or in the various state charters simply disproves the common claims by the Lost Cause ideologists.

Trust me, I'm definitely not one of the Lost Cause ideologues.

So the author doesn't bother to even attempt to list a single benefit of the electoral college? Could at least have given a minimal shred of effort to have a well rounded discussion of the issue.

> So the author doesn't bother to even attempt to list a single benefit of the electoral college?

Yet you won't bother to even attempt to list any either? That seems a little unfair.

Me, I once thought the Electoral College offered a minor benefit, the idea that its ranks of delegates were a protective fuse against disaster, where all those éminence grise types would have a principled revolt and block some flagrantly unqualified demagogue from seizing the levers of power.

However that was before the live-testing of 2016, where the "feature" singularly failed to operate.

That was a big disappointment. I thought Petzold was smarter than that...

technical debt is probably far easier to address than political debt.

The American Left:

> The most obvious result of this scheme is that individual voters in small-population states tend to have more power in choosing the President than individual voters in high-population states, and that difference can skew an election.

The Indian Left:[1]

> enlarging the numbers of lawmakers in relation to population growth in a way penalizes those states that have achieved more in terms of slowing down their demographic growth

Completely inconsistent, self-serving arguments which basically want to change the electoral system because their side is losing.

[1] Equality or Fraternity? Challenges of India’s New Constituency Delimitation (https://thediplomat.com/2021/11/equality-or-fraternity-chall...)

How is it surprising that the policies of two factions that have nothing to do with each other, who aren't even on the same continent, are potentially inconsistent with each other?

Yeah, could you even imagine an American politician talking about "achieving more in slowing down demographic growth"?

Not only is this an obvious self-serving attempt to guarantee electoral victory, it argues backwards, managing to make historical demographic facts "racist" in and of themselves. It is also a naked attempt to increase the already top-heavy influence of a few cities over the national political scene, which would effectively disenfranchise voters in a majority of states.

The other side is just as self-serving.

Have you considered that slowing down demographic growth might be an important goal in Indian politics, but not so much in American politics?

When your accusations of hypocrisy are just picking two random writers who have no connection, attributing them tk two different broad diverse groups that each containing many and different viewpoints and are largely unconnected, and then arguing as if these two broad diverse groups are like a single hive mind that should have one consistent viewpoint... maybe instead of doing a hypocrisy based ad hominem against an entity you’ve invented for the purpose you should just either discuss the actual issue?

I like this comment, except the last 3 words. Not that I necessarily disagree, but it's not conducive to productive conversation (not to mention goes against HN's guidelines)

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You are right, and I have edited the original comment to remove the offending words, which were unnecessary and unhelpful.

> two random writers

You know just as well as I do that these positions are not those of two random writers, but that of the ideological Left in each country.[1][2][3] I have seen these discussed at length on tv, youtube and in print in both countries.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/06/10/1002594108/a-growing-number-o...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/us/politics/electoral-col...

[3] https://scroll.in/article/1049779/modis-new-parliament-could...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com