Agreed the grandparent's reply was a smarmy way of saying it, but, avoidance of majority rule is indeed why we use it. And to look at it another way: to keep one state (or a tiny few) from deciding the direction the rest of the states in the union must go.
I don't think it's a stretch to say we've become a more singular nation state, so that second part may not be as obvious, but, it's definitely still a factor. Imagine the general mentality in a state whose populace you have a low opinion of can now dictate things formerly decided in your state.
The system doesn't seem to work to prevent a tiny few states from deciding the direction the rest must go, it just shuffles them around. Instead of states like California, Texas, and New York having the biggest say, we have states like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida doing it. I don't see how that's an improvement, and it actually looks substantially worse to me.
States like CA, TX, and NY still have their say, AND states like OH, VA, and FL. It only takes 11 states to win the electoral college (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NJ, NC), but those never agree, and likely won't, that's when other states come into play.
With a popular vote, instead of candidates trying to vie for states by visiting regions in them, would hit a few hundred cities that they would already hit in the Electoral College process, but then stop there. It would effectively leave entire states out of the campaign process. That will only be magnified as we switch to the Internet for our media, so I think it's still worthwhile to get candidates out there hustling for votes, in front of hundreds of local media outlets while they exist. I genuinely think it helps vet them, as it gives the more opportunities to say things, including "the wrong things", and things that will change peoples mind's.
I fear when we start cutting back on physical appearances, we'll get to the point where the Internet is all that's left. Then they'll control the message completely. Imagine candidates who not only don't answer question, but seemingly don't get asked them. At least we currently have people who throw metaphorical wrenches at the seemingly monolithic candidates, hoping to snag them.
Because implying that someone who needs a justification for "One person, one vote" is below you is not dickish at all. I saw my post as doing you a favor: giving you my return argument so that you could write up a proper rebuttal ahead of time.
But hey. You can poison the well all you like. The burden of proof is not on me.
Your curt replies would hardly give mikeash sufficient context to understand either your intentions or what your return argument was going to be. I presume he thought you were simply going to twist his words ("one person, one vote" -> "mob rule") and was irked.
Your reply to ktizo was much more informative and appreciable.
> I presume he thought you were simply going to twist his words ("one person, one vote" -> "mob rule")
No, that's what I did. "Mob rule" is a proxy for the entire notion that direct democracy cannot work; the only other responses are that people don't want it or people can't do it. It's a blatantly obvious response from anyone who did not already buy into whatever mikeash is selling. The fact that he was framing his next response to be a sophisticated, high-fallutin, knock-your-socks-off thesis of epic proportions was disgusting and offensive. I'm not surprised that a taste of his own medicine cornered him into name-calling and running away.
> Your reply to ktizo was much more informative and appreciable.
Because ktizo was asking for information. If someone asks a question, I answer it earnestly. If someone is clearly ignorant, I try to explain what they're missing. If someone claims to have a solution to a well-known problem like "ZOMG!SHEEPLE", I expect them to actually have the damn solution ready at hand and not dangle it like a fucking carrot.
He could have called me on my tone and then answered the question. But I suspect he has no answer. All he has is an intuitive appeal to fairness completely unsupported by thousands of years of world history.
> Because implying that someone who needs a justification for "One person, one vote" is below you is not dickish at all.
I don't know what the hell you think you read, but you need to go back and try again. I never implied anything of the sort. I didn't know what level of justification you were after, so I started off with the most obvious rationale and left the door open to further discussion.
I have no idea how you could interpret that as "implying that someone... is below you". Maybe jerks think everyone is jerks, I don't know.
How would giving equal weight to all votes in elections, compared to giving diferent weights according to geographic location, be any more or less 'mob-rule'?
The purpose of the electoral college is to acknowledge the states as mostly-sovereign entities in their own right. This used to be quite important; it remains an issue, though largely a proxy war, today. I don't know whether or not I support the electoral college. I actually quite like liquid democracy, but I'm not yet sold on the system; I have a friend currently working on implementing it and it's interesting to watch him work through its issues. It's one of those things that wouldn't have been feasible in 1800 but is far more feasible today.
Digression aside, the acknowledgement of the states is a neutralization of pure people power. It is the same reason that the Supreme Court is not elected, and executive appointees are not elected. These are things that are intended to be a check against the people. This is also why the tax-exempt status of churches is supposed to depend on the fact that they are to be politically neutral, and why Kennedy's Catholicism was such a hot issue when he ran for office. This is why charities frequently remain neutral in political discourse, why HN was divided on whether a business should be allowed to take sides on a political issue. This is why you're not allowed to discuss who you're voting for, or campaign for a candidate or issue, within a certain radius of a polling station.
Because "one person, one vote" never is. In any group of people larger than approximately 25 and definitely larger than 150, you will never actually get "one person, one vote". You will get political parties, who give you flyers saying "Vote for these 5 dudes, vote yes on A, B, and D, vote no on C and E," and those flyers will be followed to the letter.
It is probably possible to maintain the argument for "one person, one vote" despite all of these reasons not to, of course. I'd like to see the argument made that can account for the problem of demagoguery, the problem of charisma, especially enhanced as it's been by the advent of television. I haven't seen it yet.
