Comment by hagbard_c | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hagbard_c | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No, the electoral college seems to be mostly OK to me since without it the elections would be forever determined by a few densely populated coastal cities - which is also where the politicos would turn all their attention to. The rest of the USA would be treated as those districts in those Hunger Games books, as regions from where the stuff you eat and the stuff you build stuff with comes from but otherwise uninteresting and unimportant.

Ranked Choice is also a bad idea because it is too complicated, just do what many sane countries do to great effect: paper ballots, filled in with a pencil, deposited in a ballot box under the eyes of a staff member. One ballot per person, mail-in voting restricted to those who absolutely need it. Voter ID for everyone, no exceptions. Early voting is mostly OK as long as the ballot boxes are kept under watch ALL THE TIME, no exception.

After the polls close the ballots are hand-counted in the polling locations, then sent off for an automatic machine recount. Mail-in votes are counted beforehand and the results of that count are made available when the last polling booth closes - this is important because 'late mail-in votes' can be used to 'fill in the gaps' which is not what should be happening in free and fair elections. Provisional results will be available on the same day as the elections are held, those provisional results will become final after all results are in and the machine re-count is finished. The only technology needed is a scanner and a tabulator, Herman Hollerhith [1] could have supplied these.

So: paper ballots, hand counted, verified through machine counting. Voter ID like all civilised countries use, no exceptions. Mail-in voting only for those who absolutely need it. Early voting on polling locations OK but the ballot boxes should be guarded 24/7 in an open and verifiable manner, no exceptions allowed. Results available on election day.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/money/Herman-Hollerith

They SHOULD be determined by those cities. It's not like Wyoming gets a say with the EC. Instead, who's nominated is decided by Iowa and the presidency is decided by six suburban housewives in Pennsylvania. It would be a huge improvement if Los Angeles and NYC were actually were rallies were held.

No, the local elections should - and will - be determined by those cities, the state elections should be determined by the inhabitants of the states and the federal elections by 'the states' in a weighted manner so as to make sure less densely populated states also have a say in all things federal. If you think this gives too much power to the less densely populated states I'd suggest this is caused by the idea of the federal state having too much power, not by the electoral college or anything related to it. Don't want to have people from 'fly-over states' to have a say in ${issue}? Make sure ${issue} is handled at the state or local level and those rednecks, deplorables, 'garbage' and hillbillies don't get to have a say in it while thanking you for keeping out of their affairs.

As a Pennyslvanian whose entire household has voted, I'd really appreciate if the political ads were spread more equitably across the country.

Voter ID should only be introduced where you have a cheap (ideally free), universal way of proving ID, and multiple ways of establishing identity (what if I’ve just been mugged on the way to the polling station?)

It’s also solving a problem which probably doesn’t exist. The number of arrests / convictions for voter impersonation are next none.

It was introduced recently in the UK, and in the next election, the prime minister at the time the legislation was introduced managed to get caught without ID when trying to vote: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68947834

Have you ever looked at how many things actually require showing an ID? The list is endless. Nothing is ever heard about that by those who oppose voter ID, why is that?

I live in Sweden where I have to show my ID when I vote. I lived in the Netherlands where I had to show my ID when I voted. Everybody has to, everybody does it, nobody - and I mean nobody - has any problems with this because everybody understands the need.

I have spent most of my life in the UK, which has no national ID card and does not typically require one to prove/verify identify on a regular basis. Prior to the introduction of voter ID laws in 2023, typically one would simply need to give their name/address at the polling station, who would have a list of eligible voters for that specific region (in the UK one has an assigned polling station, of which there are around 30.000 total for a population of 70.000.000)

If you require voter ID in such a state (and I believe the US is comparable), you run the risk of systematically disenfranchising groups of people - generally the most poor who are less likely to drive, take vacations requiring a passport, etc.

And, as I mentioned, in the UK at least vote fraud is not, and has never been a problem. You can see the recorded instances of electoral fraud in the UK here: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-... - e.g. in 2022 (before vote ID) there were 13 alleged cases and 1 conviction.

Here's 22 things you need a photo ID for in the USA [1]:

1: buying alcohol

2: opening a bank account

3: applying for food stamps

4: applying for Welfare

5: applying for Medicaid and Social Security

6: renting or buying a house

7: buying or renting a car

8: flying on an airplane

9: getting married

10: buying firearms

11: adopting a pet

12: applying for a hunting licence

13: checking in to a hotel

14: applying for a fishing licence

15: buying a cell phone

16: getting prescription medication

17: entering a casino

18: holding a protest or rally (in some places)

19: donating blood

20: buying X-rated video games

21: buying tobacco

22: applying for unemployment benefits

> If you require voter ID in such a state (and I believe the US is comparable), you run the risk of systematically disenfranchising groups of people - generally the most poor who are less likely to drive, take vacations requiring a passport, etc.

Those people already need a photo ID to apply for food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, social security, getting prescription medication and to apply for unemployment benefits. Photo ID (Real ID and Enhanced ID (for those who need to cross over to Canada) are available at U.S. state or territory’s DMV or equivalent agencies, tend to be valid for 8 years and cost between $30-$60.

[1] https://www.stilt.com/immigrants/22-things-that-require-a-ph...

This works better in countries with a national ID. The US doesn't have one, and what is acceptable voter ID is often heavily restricted.

Ireland doesn't have a true national ID, and you can be asked for ID when voting; however this has never really become an issue, because practically _anything_ is acceptable as ID. That is very much not the case in some US states which require id to vote.

Take a look at the map of campaign stops for the Trump and Harris campaigns. Not exactly covering the broad country. The electoral college sure doesn't seem to be making sure that broad swathes of the country are not ignored.

People vote. In a world with a national popular vote it wouldn't be cities deciding elections, it would be people. Every single person would have precisely the same say in the outcome.

What really matters are the policies they enact while in office. Without the electoral college, they could ignore the needs of most of the country as long as they satisfy the coastal cities.

It seems like with the electoral college, the needs of most of the country are being foresaken for the satisfaction of the coastal cities, if Trumpism is to be believed.

[citation needed]

The entirety of Trumpism is a tirade against the coastal elites.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com