The AP has called winners in elections for more than 170 years. How it's done

Re:The AP has called winners in elections for more than 170 ... by bee_rider on Sunday November 03, 2024 @01:27PM (#42034971)

There’s no particular reason to call it a backdoor or not the “right” way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The AP has called winners in elections for more than 170 ... by rvnx on Sunday November 03, 2024 @01:29PM (#42034983)

a "hack", or a "workaround" is more appropriate perhaps, rather than a backdoor.

It reminds me of technical debt. Instead of rewriting the original buggy code, we add one more feature and we certainly don't change anything to the original code.

So instead we have:

"This is the logic, we do this A and this B, but oh well, anyway it's C"

Simpler is better, especially on crucial things such as elections.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The AP has called winners in elections for more than 170 ... by kiba on Sunday November 03, 2024 @01:42PM (#42035102)

It is horrendously difficult to amend the constitution. We would need much greater societal consensus to be make it easier to amend the constitution.

Changing the presidental vote to a popular vote would be the first step to doing that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The AP has called winners in elections for more than 170 ... by christianqchung on Sunday November 03, 2024 @01:42PM (#42035105)

Getting 75% of states to support something is simpler than getting 50% of electoral college votes to agree on supporting the more popular candidate? Constitutional amendments are anything but simple.

[ Parent | on HN ]