The Electoral College Discriminates Against Hispanics and Asians
medium.comIn other words: Hispanics and Asians don't live in every state at the same proportions. I guess blaming every problem on "racist institutions" is more trendy, though.
as americans shouldn't we all want the same things regardless of race, ethnicity or any other form of "identity"? so in theory these things should not matter, should they?
That's one of those ideas that sounds really good, in theory, until you look at reality where people in California unironically want to secede from the US (or Texas in '08).
> until you look at reality where people in California unironically want to secede from the US
No they don't. They were responding angrily to the election via a poll.
The parties are interested in dividing us up into voting blocks so they can selectively cater to, ignore, and pit them against each other at their own discretion.
Anytime you use "should" in a political discussion, you're on shaky ground.
It's not incidental that they don't live in every state in equal proportion. That's a result of policy instituted by systems that, surprise, surprise have been racist for centuries. When exactly did the electoral college stop being a way to give an outsize influence to the rural white vote? That's always been it's purpose.
If you examine the historical evidence, the common reason given for the electoral college, that the founding fathers feared a demagogue, has scant evidence in its favor save for a little bit of rhetoric here and there while the constitution was being framed. The reason that is far more substantiated and coherent with the rest of the politics of the time is that the electoral college protected the influence of white landowners in states that depended on slavery.
Race in American politics is not some fucking trend. Like really? That's what you're going to go with?
It's incidental to entry points into the US and pre-existing population centers. See the following density maps:
1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/As...
2. http://markettolatinos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/graphi...
Well, we just had an article that facts don't change people's minds. The fact is that, in the presidential race, a black vote is worth 92% of a white vote, an hispanic vote 75% and an asian vote 59%. You can try to hand wave it away, but facts are facts: there is racial disparity in presidential votes due to the electoral college. And yes, that is an uncomfortable fact for non-racists.
Of course it isn't as bad as the raw state to state disparity: 3.6:1 for votes cast in Wyoming vs California. I'm not sure how they got "voter power index" because it seems like Wyoming would obviously have the most voting power.
Did you even read the HN comments on the article [1]? They were predominantly critical of it.
Either way, that's not really what the article here shows. It assumes everyone of a particular race votes the same and describes the power of a homogeneous voting bloc (which doesn't exist), not the power of individual votes of people of those races.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Edit: thank you for the clarification. I don't see anywhere in the article where they imply these racial groups are voting in blocks. They seem to be breaking down individual voting power by race.
Taking an average doesn't imply voters vote in a block, it is simply quantifying the average disparity.
The unstated assumption about voting power is that all persons of a particular minority group are the same and have the same voting power. That's absolutely false unless you assume all people of that minority group vote the same. A black person in California has different voting power than one in South Dakota. The important indicator of voting power is not race, but location.
I come to Hacker News for technology and start-up information. Why am I continuously confronted with political agendas that have nothing to do with the purpose of this forum. Take this to some /r/ forum.
Do what I do: flag each and every one of them.
Done
The Guidelines