Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration. If it can happen then that’s the system. “Sure, a minority can elect our country’s leader. But it only happens sometimes.” Doesn’t that seem weird?

Maybe the connotation of “king” is a bit off, but the president has a huge amount of power and apparently the only check on him (impeachment) has the exact same vulnerabilities that his election has (concentration of power in low population states).

I just can’t imagine a group of intelligent people today starting from scratch and deciding this is what we should end up with.




> “Sure, a minority can elect our country’s leader. But it only happens sometimes.” Doesn’t that seem weird?

Q: Is it actually uncommon for a (motivated and/or vocal) minority to end up with [de facto] control over something?

To me, it feels like this kind of thing happens all the time :(

Read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority”[0], it's well-argued.

[0] https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...


Iowa has this kind of primary system. Representatives from the local caucus go to regional and then state. With the same issues. Not all bad - if something changes between the early caucus and the final state convention the delegates can respond.


To be fair, it wasn't like they started from scratch back then either: there were slave states and free states, and something had to give.


Yeah, I don’t mean to rag on the founding fathers. I just find it ridiculous that we’re still dealing with these compromises from disputes 250 years later. That’s another way it’s like a monarchy. “Why is this our government?”. “Well, 250 years ago to avoid war and consolidate power, some agreements were made between landowners and here we are.”




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: