Renewable Energy is Surging in Africa (apnews.com) 140
Almost a fifth of the earth's population lives in Africa. And Africa's next generation of power projects "is increasingly being built around solar and wind power and battery storage," reports the Associated Press, "as governments and investors shift away from coal and large hydropower dams in search of cheaper, faster and more reliable electricity."
The shift is visible in a $1.5 billion energy agreement between China and Zambia announced in early May that includes three separate 300-megawatt projects spanning solar, wind and coal-fired power. While the inclusion of coal underscores the continent's continuing need for stable baseload electricity, African countries facing rising fuel import bills as a result of the Iran war, unreliable grids and growing industrial demand are increasingly turning to renewable energy projects that can be deployed faster and more cheaply than traditional plants.
Of the 322 energy projects announced across Africa in 2025, 173 were solar projects, followed by hydropower at 46, wind at 34, gas at 22 and hybrid energy projects at 14, according to the energy research firm Electron Intelligence... Utility-scale solar power costs have dropped by nearly 90% globally since 2010, while onshore wind costs have fallen around 70%, making renewables the cheapest source of new electricity generation in many African markets...
Much of the growth is through distributed solar and battery systems installed directly in mines, factories, telecom towers and homes. "Most official statistics still measure the energy transition the old way, by counting megawatts connected to national grids," [said Matt Tilleard, CEO of CrossBoundary Energy, which invests in renewable energy in Africa]. "But solar and batteries don't need central utilities." Data from the Africa Solar Industry Association shows 23.4 gigawatts of operational solar projects had been tracked across Africa by the end of 2025. But Chinese export figures indicate 58.1 gigawatts of solar panels have been shipped to African countries since 2017, suggesting solar adoption may be growing far faster than official figures capture.
Investor Tilleard says "Renewable energy is now unequivocally the fastest, cheapest, and most bankable way to connect people, companies and economies to the megawatts they need to grow."
And the article also includes this quote from Mugwe Manga, climate finance lead at FSD Kenya. "Africa is not on the periphery of the global energy transition, it is sitting at its center. The continent holds the world's best renewable resources, and the economics have now decisively turned in favor of clean energy."
Of the 322 energy projects announced across Africa in 2025, 173 were solar projects, followed by hydropower at 46, wind at 34, gas at 22 and hybrid energy projects at 14, according to the energy research firm Electron Intelligence... Utility-scale solar power costs have dropped by nearly 90% globally since 2010, while onshore wind costs have fallen around 70%, making renewables the cheapest source of new electricity generation in many African markets...
Much of the growth is through distributed solar and battery systems installed directly in mines, factories, telecom towers and homes. "Most official statistics still measure the energy transition the old way, by counting megawatts connected to national grids," [said Matt Tilleard, CEO of CrossBoundary Energy, which invests in renewable energy in Africa]. "But solar and batteries don't need central utilities." Data from the Africa Solar Industry Association shows 23.4 gigawatts of operational solar projects had been tracked across Africa by the end of 2025. But Chinese export figures indicate 58.1 gigawatts of solar panels have been shipped to African countries since 2017, suggesting solar adoption may be growing far faster than official figures capture.
Investor Tilleard says "Renewable energy is now unequivocally the fastest, cheapest, and most bankable way to connect people, companies and economies to the megawatts they need to grow."
And the article also includes this quote from Mugwe Manga, climate finance lead at FSD Kenya. "Africa is not on the periphery of the global energy transition, it is sitting at its center. The continent holds the world's best renewable resources, and the economics have now decisively turned in favor of clean energy."
Less legacy infrastructure, Easier to run locally. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Less legacy infrastructure, Easier to run local (Score:5, Insightful)
Also Africa has a heck of a lot of sun in patterns that are more consistent all year round. Close to the equator you may get less sun in the day but you don't get a 4x difference between the peak summer production and minimum winter production as we do here.
More consistent output means it's easier to plan around, and not having winters at 40 below zero means even if the power is out for a while you're probably not going to die.
Lastly, of course, with local power production there aren't thousands of miles of copper cables and tall metal pylons to cut up and steal.
Re: (Score:2)
Lastly, of course, with local power production there aren't thousands of miles of copper cables and tall metal pylons to cut up and steal.
Like telephone land lines when cellular was introduced.
Re:Less legacy infrastructure, Easier to run local (Score:5, Insightful)
That's actually the area of my interest. This would seem to be a natural situation for local power grids without the need for investment in long distance high voltage transmission. There can be an advantage to skipping over the earlier technologies if you pick the right stuff. The problem is knowing what "right" means because that's largely dependent on the "maturity" of the technologies in question.
But where is the angle to go for the funny? I'm not really seeing any good ones for this story. Something about the AI advice to investors in Africa? (Maybe something about what the AI said when it found Dr Livingstone?)
Re: (Score:2)
But where is the angle to go for the funny?
I'd say AI generated images of large wild life trying to use slow moving wind turbine blades as back scratchers. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
The key to 'surfing the 2nd generation techs' is that you - defacto - can't be at the cutting edge. In fact you have to be a backward society *vastly* behind the curve to avoid having to have that legacy sunk-cost infrastructure.
Nobody "skipped over" early tech, that implies agency. These are LEFT BEHIND economies. I don't think anyone chooses that as a strategy.
So it's externally-developed tech that someone is selling them.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but the point is that at least one silver lining on not having had reliable grid supplied electricity for every household is that it’s now possible for African countries to have a distribution-first approach to electricity that will be more equitable and cleaner than the alternative, and potentially much faster too.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely.
The great example is phones - I'd love to see a data driven study on network quality/cost to users for cell phones in Africa. They largely skipped the whole "stringing wires all over the fucking place" step and jumped straight to cell phones. How has that worked for them compared to mature hardwire telephone systems in developed countries? Pros? Cons? Long term benefits/costs?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure an AI could give you a reasonable answer. Not perfect but a good start
Re: (Score:2)
One of the issues with integrating renewable energy into the North American grid is the 'sunk cost' of all that cruft of installed hardware. Another is the accounting/tax requirements, and yet another is the organizational structures of the US energy system. Transformers are expected to last 20+ years for example, no executive is going to forgo their quarterly bonus by replacing "dumb" transformers that haven't been fully depreciated for "smart" ones that can deal with variable energy flows.
There aren't an
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think most of it is planned, and that goes for Europe as well. Governments have some control, such as making rules around balcony solar or minimum allowances for rooftop solar to be connected to the grid, but for the most part it's been people installing it because of some personal decision they made (it's a great investment). The grid has been forced to change faster than the operator would have liked it to in many places, which is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
In the main, although the Spanish national blackout just over a year ago suggests that maybe it changed too fast. (Hard to use a stronger word than "maybe" because my understanding is that the report on the causes didn't really say anything).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of your pseudo-'concerns' are being dealt with, by whatever method is most appropriate for the locality.
As far as solar panels in Tornado Alley, go ask the operators of the giant solar and wind farms being constructed in Texas. Besides, there's nowhere in Africa which gets tornadoes or hurricanes like the southern US anyway.
Reasons for solar/wind (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Not tied to frequent fuel deliveries
2) Does not require much that humans don't already need - sun and air. (Variability will affect your power storage needs)
3) It can be deployed almost anywhere, and even be portable.
The main issue is energy density - if you want to drive hundreds of kilometers a day, run your AC all summer and heat all winter, etc., you're going to need a lot of land dedicated to power collection.
I imagine there are a lot of places in a continent like Africa where people might be happy to get by on what solar can give them in return for not having to worry about burning oil or anything else to get electricity.
"Variability" will included the African monsoons (Score:3)
Variability will affect your power storage needs
Keep in mind that "variability" will included the African monsoon seasons (months varies across continent).
Re: (Score:3)
Start with a ducted horizontal wind turbine. If you imagine a bunch of salad bowls stacked with spacers and you get the idea of what it would look like from the outside.
The ducts collect air from any direction and drive it down, through the turbine, and out the bottom. Water doesn't turn corners quiet as easily as air, so you can use the ducts to separate out the majority of liquid and drain it away from your turbine.
Then you and an armored shell of horizontal bands that can be moved up and down to reduce
Re: (Score:2)
There's your monsoon-resistant wind turbine.
And now initial cost and ongoing maintenance costs are scaled by what factors? Assuming it really is that simple of course.
Re: (Score:2)
The additional cost over a normal horizontal ducted turbine is, of course, the new shell and the actuator it requires.
Re: (Score:2)
The additional cost over a normal horizontal ducted turbine is, of course, the new shell and the actuator it requires.
I've not really see ducted turbines at all on local projects nor proposals.
When I google to see if I have missed something I find:
"Ducted (or shrouded) wind turbines are not common in major proposed wind projects. The commercial and utility-scale wind industry is dominated by conventional, open three-blade Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines (HAWTs).While ducted turbines offer theoretical efficiency boosts by accelerating wind through the rotor, they are rarely used in large-scale applications for several k
Re: (Score:2)
Next you're going to tell me the sun doesn't shine at night.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's actually only one reason.
They can't get credit for anything else.
African nations are exceptionally capital poor. Basically all projects are funded by foreign investment banks.
Last decade and a half was significant reduction on any power plant infrastructure loans that were for anything other than solar and wind, of which time after 2015 (Paris Agreement) was almost a total ban. This hit even the one exception in Africa: SA, and is one of the reasons for their constant blackouts. Though as is the cas
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to not understand how capital works. That's ok. Most people don't.
Here for example, you conflate "foreign capital doled as investment aid to most capital poor nations on the planet" with "domestic capital chasing limited opportunities in the most investment rich empire in all of human history".
Re: (Score:2)
It's like you didn't bother actually reading my post and just responded in ignorance.
It happens here, but perhaps you'd be happier on Reddit?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I did... and your post, while it showed creativity for it's content, the basis that 'everyone is good and isn't gonna steal, and everything is totally renewable'.
(Underlines designate me, so does the following)
1) Not tied to frequent fuel deliveries _(Coal and NatGas don't need delivery... must be active coal mines, and active NatGas sources in-country.)_ If you manage to go 1,000% renewable someplace, anyplace, on this spinning rock, we all wanna know how you did it, because there's this thing called
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Trump's fault that we don't make crap-all in the US anymore... you can thank people wanting higher and higher wages (and tons more privilege's) (which has jacked up prices on everything, also) for tons of companies going overseas or reducing headcount at the places that stayed here.
Much cheaper to build stuff in Asia and Pakistan and such... and over there, they can give the whole family a job (including the kids)! Pay them a dollar and a handful of rice; in an area where there are no other jobs,
Re: (Score:3)
2) Fallacy... how's the solar power at night? How's that wind on a no-wind day?
Maybe your problem is that you were biased by your 1st world privilege, but right now many of the places have no power during a sunny day and a windy day as well. Ironically Africans seem to be more educated about power than you are e.g. SA is currently planning 11GWh of grid batteries to go with their solar projects.
But I guess you think your mobile phone is powered by hopes and dreams and energy storage is some woke vaccinated nonsense right?
Re: (Score:2)
What's the highest voltage you're held in your hand?
Mine was 200KV at 100 Amps... yeah, 2 megawatts... fun times making fulgurites (2x 100KVA pole pigs, 100Amp breaker)... on the end of an 8-foot chicken-stick!
(we also set our fire-proof high-voltage lab on fire... overachievers, much)
I'm biased because of my first world privilege? In what way?
I know my US dollar isn't worth much more than the atoms it's printed on (same as the rest around the world)
No, I know my computers (which my office laptop charges m
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect demonstration. Your biased by what you know. You've held 200kV @100A in your hand and you're commenting on communities who have never even seen 3ph power and saying something is or isn't suitable for them.
You're living outside of the reality of this conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
This poster is just confidently wrong about everything they post on the topic of renewables. They had a hilarious exchange with them recently where they suggested “ I'm fairly certain "4.086 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity" is gonna need more than just the SW deserts-worth of solar panels to run crap, not even getting into how many more, and power storage, and all that.”
I pointed out you could supply that much electricity with panels covering only 8% of the Mojave desert, and that i
Re: (Score:2)
So you're happy to just ignore the fact that millions of people around the world are happily making this work already and instead pretend that your objections are somehow going to stop deployment of renewable energy in the Third World. That's a, well, "unique" attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it works great during the way with, y'know, 5-10GW (actually, double (and a little bit more) that to charge the massive battery UPS) of solar powering your favorite AI's DC.
So, everybody has a Tesla power wall or something similar in their house/hut? If there are still power utilities around, to cover when that battery pack runs down, that power is going to be at a premium (because they can't charge premium during the day because of all the renewables, night is gonna end up being the new 'premuim pri
Re: (Score:2)
Your ignorance is rather impressive in a way. If you'd like to educate yourself as to the actual technological progress in he world the journal of the International Electronics and Electrical Engineers Association is a good place to start:
spectrum.ieee.org
Ya, but ... (Score:2)
Investor Tilleard says "Renewable energy is now unequivocally the fastest, cheapest, and most bankable way to connect people, companies and economies to the megawatts they need to grow."
It's a scam - the U.S. Dear Leader has said so many, many times, so it must be that. /s
(And his Party and followers are happy to acquiesce.)
Shocking! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think anyone [slashdot.org] could have seen this coming [slashdot.org] for any reason [slashdot.org] at all. [slashdot.org]
Re:Shocking! Indeed! :-) (Score:2)
Me from 2000: https://dougengelbart.org/coll... [dougengelbart.org] ..."
"Powertech -- Twenty years to widespread fuel cells, PV, wind, microturbines, etc.
Source: My general reading in this area, like my previous post on energy issues.
The referenced energy post by me from 2000: https://dougengelbart.org/coll... [dougengelbart.org]
"The current land area used in the US related to fossil fuel mining, refining, storage, and distribution is roughly 1% of the US land area. So, it is not f
Poor Power Plants (Score:2)
When your power plants are non-existent or unreliable, a power source you can purchase and maintain becomes a wonderful choice.
Similarly, people living in a homestead situation do the same thing. Alaska cabins almost all have solar and often have wind or a water turbine.
SHS has delivered power to hundreds of millions (Score:3)
The estimate is that about 300m people in Africa now have access to more (and more reliable) electricity thanks to the adoption of solar home systems (typically a panel, integrated battery, LED, phone charge, and outlet for a small appliance). Community power systems are providing transport as well. It’s going to be transformative. As I’ve mentioned here before, it means kids can do their homework at night, food stays fresh for longer thanks to being able to run a fridge, and respiratory health improves without kerosene and generators running. People pay with microloans and the costs of paying off the loans is a heckuva lot lower than paying for fuel, and doesn’t have volatility either.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. But what TFS summary seems to be talking about is investment in utility grade renewable generation. Which will help out the big cities and industrial sites. But they won't do squat for the villages miles off the end of the distribution grid.
They do acknowledge that most of the growth is in distributed systems. And that this growth is difficult to measure using the national grid demand. But it looks like they could use more home and village systems as well.
Re: (Score:3)
They need more of everything! More SHS, more community systems, more industrial scale systems, etc.
But one thing this article doesn’t really capture is how dramatic the surge has been in the last few weeks, sparked by Trump & Hormuz. It’s at least double the monthly import rate of last year.
So the pace of change is increasing
Re: (Score:2)
and yet, they still whole-heartedly support el Bunko. I think their economic philosophy means shit to tree. Their only actually philosophy is to make money off whatever political grift-horse is current.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In Soviet America, the industry and market winners pick the government!
Nope, the voters pick the government. It's still one person one vote. The problem is the voters don't do any homework. They just vote for the politicians that tells them the most virtuous sounding story, actual accomplishments in the realm of problem solving are not required. Promise to address homelessness and fail to do so as mayor, then promise to address homelessness and fail as state governor, wasting billions of dollars along the way that helped few but enriched those "researching" the problem and "pr
Re: (Score:2)
Not for President or Vice President, that's the Electoral College, so everyone's been wrong when everyone blames us for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, but tons on here (I don't have a list... don't even know if that's possible to search for) blame the people (me, you, rsilvergun, everyone) for who's in office... even though none of us have any real influence.
What proportionality? There is none, unless everybody (and, I use the term loosely) voted for an equal split between Republican and Democrat... and, I doubt that's gonna happen... it's basically always gonna come down to who has the seemingly best policies based on who's up for election. An
Re: (Score:2)
I take it a step further and blame the people on an even deeper level because everyone will admit that we have a system that produces miserable results regardless of party, but no one wants to re
Re: (Score:3)
the electoral college and two senate seat ideas was an essential compromise to create the United States in the first place
That's great and all but it's 250 years later. At the very least we can use a popular vote for the single election that everyone in the nation votes for. I have yet to hear any compelling argument against this. It's clean, it's fair, it's simple.
They run their campaigns completely differently as a result. If the popular vote had been the goal then all candidates would have had very different campaigns
That alone is a great argument for popular vote.
Re: No, they are wrong (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's called the Senate and it's skewed heavily in favor of the "country". Shit, there shouldn't even be two Dakotas.
We have exactly 1 office where the entire nation votes. Just one and they represent everyone, city and country alike. So everyone gets to vote for it and have their vote count the same.
Then the candidates actually have to craft to appeal to both the city and the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is location the single variable you think needs weighting like this, of all conceivable variables?
Re: (Score:3)
So how is the opposite OK then? What we have now is that a minority of the population who never set foot in populated areas get to decide policy for the majority of the population who happen to live in cities. Why should minority rural voters have all the power?
Re: (Score:2)
Because if they don't have minority control it's mob rule! So simple! As long as they always win that's what is fair!
Re: (Score:3)
the electoral college and two senate seat ideas was an essential compromise to create the United States in the first place
That's great and all but it's 250 years later. At the very least we can use a popular vote for the single election that everyone in the nation votes for.
A quick look at today's politics seems to confirm that nothing has changed, urban would effectively dominate. We are a republic for this reason. And the electoral college is part of the checks and balances. We need them today just as we did 250 years ago. Especially since, IMHO, today's politicians are a lot less intelligent than they were 250 years ago.
A more direct national popular vote will just be a step closer to mob rule. That's not an improvement.
They run their campaigns completely differently as a result. If the popular vote had been the goal then all candidates would have had very different campaigns
That alone is a great argument for popular vote.
Its not. (1) It debunks the myth that the popular r
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are a republic because your founding fathers, probably ascribing James III more power than he really had as a post-Glorious Revolution monarch, decided that head of state should not be a hereditary position.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are a republic because your founding fathers, probably ascribing James III more power than he really had as a post-Glorious Revolution monarch, decided that head of state should not be a hereditary position.
It is far more than that. The colonies had very different cultures and backgrounds. Compromise was essential to get anything done, a high degree of local control was necessary. A republic addresses these concerns very well.
Re: (Score:2)
The point was that "republic" simply means "not a monarchy". The state is a "public thing/matter", not a private concern.
Re: (Score:2)
The point was that "republic" simply means "not a monarchy". The state is a "public thing/matter", not a private concern.
That is an erroneous definition of 'republic'. Google:
"A republic is a form of government where supreme power resides in the citizens, who elect representatives to govern on their behalf according to law."
Note "on their behalf", that is a critical difference with this form of government. A buffer from "mob rule".
Re: (Score:2)
We have exactly 1 office where the entire nation votes. Just one and they represent everyone.
We do not need the electoral college for some "urban/rural" balance, we already have the Senate.
Also there are literally way more people living in cities so why shouldn't they get a greater say, there is literally more of them.
Firstly, the Electoral College is actually *not* checks and balances. Secondly, again, you can't state that, you have to state *why*.
Actually I have, you just do not like the reality of the check and balances built into the US Constitution. I've mentioned the historical "mob rule" argument, I've mentioned the historical "urban centerer dominating the rural argument". You are simply in historical denial.
Let's see how google answers this question: "The Electoral College is considered part of the U.S. government's system of checks and balances. The Framers designed it to serve as a check on pure "mob rule" or direct democracy, preventing
The Federalist Papers .... (Score:2)
"In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton argues that the Electoral College is an "excellent" system that balances democratic representation with necessary security. He outlines four main defenses of the system:
Informed Deliberation: The system ensures the president is chosen by capable, deliberative citizens rather than a general public susceptible to temporary passions or "mob rule".
Prevention of Corruption: By having electors vote in th
Checks and Balances (Score:2)
"The Electoral College is directly tied to constitutional checks and balances by preventing Congress from choosing the president and protecting small states from being dominated by large states.
1. Independence from Congress (Separation of Powers)The Danger: The framers feared that if Congress chose the president, the executive branch would become a puppet of the legislature.The Check: By creating an independent, temporary body of electors, the
Re: (Score:2)
Also Madison who initially supported popular vote:
“There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.”
Re: (Score:2)
1. Nobody is asking Congress to choose the President.
2. Nobody is asking for state by state voting, popular vote would be nationwide.
3. This isn't compelling enough.and none of that in particular applies to national popular vote.
Like I said, these arguments are far from compelling and almost all of them are not applicable.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you name another country that uses and Electoral College system?
Can you show examples of "mob rule" in other nations that use popular vote systems?
Also is our system now not a sort of reverse mob rule? Explain how not and how popular vote would be so starkly different?
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, these arguments are far from compelling and almost all of them are not applicable.
That's not the point, the point is you are absolutely incorrect that the electoral college is not part of the checks and blanches system
2. Nobody is asking for state by state voting, popular vote would be nationwide.
You are missing a fundamental check and balance here. Our gov't is founded on the notion that the people's interests and the state's interests both count, that both have a say. The electoral college provides both.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you name another country that uses and Electoral College system?
I'm only familiar with the one in the oldest democracy on earth, i.e. the most enduring to date.
Can you show examples of "mob rule" in other nations that use popular vote systems?
Our founding fathers were students of Ancient Greece and learned from their early experiments with democracy.
Also is our system now not a sort of reverse mob rule? Explain how not and how popular vote would be so starkly different?
Our system does what it was designed to do, force compromise. Extremism is minimized.
Re: (Score:2)
And I would say that it sounds like "checks and balances" but really, what is it checking? What is it balancing? Judicial/Executive/Legislative, they all have areas of the government that they interface with, who does the electoral college balance with? States interests? This is the executive, states have their own legislative both in their states and in Congress.
As you said yourself the EC was a compromise and logistical solve, not a legal one. Also it's form today with winner-take-all is far from how the
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so no answer there. It being the oldest actually cuts against your argument, other nations looked at our system and decided not to use that system.
Our founding fathers were students of Ancient Greece and learned from their early experiments with democracy.
Not an answer.
Our system does what it was designed to do, force compromise. Extremism is minimized.
Popular vote for President doesn't change that. Again, we have just one election that has to operate this way. The Senate and Congress and all that still operates the same. This is just about President, one office, one person. One vote per citizen.
This is why I feel like the arguments against popular vote are all vibes and Republicans who w
Re: (Score:2)
And I would say that it sounds like "checks and balances" but really, what is it checking?
Described In the above. You argument that these things aren't much of a threat, but that reality is in part due to 250 years of having the check and balance present.
As you said yourself the EC was a compromise and logistical solve, not a legal one.
Untrue, it is part of the US Constitution, that is a pretty strongly in the "law" category. And it implements a compromise necessary to create the United States, it is part of the contract.
Also it's form today with winner-take-all is far from how the Founders imagines it in the Federalist
Most likely, but the problem here is state level winner take all.
I would have to hear how the peoples interests and states interests are not represented in a nationwide popular vote.
Thoroughly discussed previously. In summary protecting small states from the tyranny of the m
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so no answer there. It being the oldest actually cuts against your argument, other nations looked at our system and decided not to use that system.
Other nations were more monocultural, not having the diversity of the United States. Not having the minority communities that needed protection from the majority, or the majority was already so entrenched they had no opportunity to enshrine protections as we were able to do.
Our founding fathers were students of Ancient Greece and learned from their early experiments with democracy.
Not an answer.
LOL. Right, Ancient Greece demonstrating the flaws in direct democracy is not an answer.
Our system does what it was designed to do, force compromise. Extremism is minimized.
Popular vote for President doesn't change that. Again, we have just one election that has to operate this way. The Senate and Congress and all that still operates the same. This is just about President, one office, one person. One vote per citizen.
Nope. What happens due to the electoral college, Presidential candidates have to pay some attention to the smaller less populous states
Re: (Score:2)
It in fact was not described unless you mean "states representation" which, im sorry, doesn't apply to President or i'm not convinvinced. Like I said, you have multiple layers of legislative representation for states. Give me anything else.
I never said it wasn;t in the Constitution or it wasn't law. You brought up some original-ism style argument here. Part of the contract, we have a baked in process to change the contract and have. This isn't an argument, this is a tautology.
If we agree that winner ta
Re: (Score:2)
Other nations were more monocultural, not having the diversity of the United States.
1. The US was not nearly as diverse when it was founded so that doesn't apply. Second political ideology is not a protected class and never has been. But this line of argument is telling. Hey guess what, the whites will be fine since that's what you're worried about.
LOL. Right, Ancient Greece demonstrating the flaws in direct democracy is not an answer.
Correct, it sure isn't a fucking reason to keep the electoral college. The US doesn;t have direct democracy, never has and changing *1 election* to popular vote *like every governor, senator, house member, city councilman and fucking dog cat
Re: (Score:2)
Other nations were more monocultural, not having the diversity of the United States.
1. The US was not nearly as diverse when it was founded so that doesn't apply.
You are seriously misinformed. Various groups that came to the US did so explicitly due to persecution, let alone being treated as second class citizens due to beliefs.
Second political ideology is not a protected class and never has been.
This isn't about political ideology, or what is sometimes described by the founding fathers as factions.
But this line of argument is telling. Hey guess what, the whites will be fine since that's what you're worried about.
Its is telling, that you can't see past your political lens. You erroneously thinking its about whiteness.
LOL. Right, Ancient Greece demonstrating the flaws in direct democracy is not an answer.
Correct, it sure isn't a fucking reason to keep the electoral college. The US doesn;t have direct democracy, never has and changing *1
Re: (Score:2)
It in fact was not described unless you mean "states representation" which, im sorry, doesn't apply to President or i'm not convinvinced.
I mean electoral college representation, which is mostly representation by congressional district, with the state given some consideration by the inclusion of its two Senators. More of an bonus for the smaller states.
The problem, is that nearly all states have gone winner take all, which is something entire different than the electoral college.
Part of the contract, we have a baked in process to change the contract and have.
We have not with respect to the electoral college. Which is why it remains part of the contract, the relative pieces have not been amended.
If we agree that winner take all state level is not good then the line between our positions is much narrower.
I agree winner take all
Re: (Score:2)
In our times: they are bound to vote how their state decided the election. That means: they are completely superfluous.
Which has nothing to do with the utility of the electoral college system and the checks and balances it provides. It is not the elector that is important, it is the fact that power is distributed in a way that gives both the individual people and the states themselves a say.
Regions, states, counties, have very different cultures and backgrounds. The electoral college is designed so these disparate groups have a say.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not provide any checks and balances.
It presidential candidates to pay attention some attention to the smaller groups, rather than focus one the larger more densely population regions and completely ignore the smaller less populous. It make the President consider all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Third parties are suppressed in the USA due to the fact we use First-Past-The-Post voting which is going to naturally lead to just two parties. Right now actual candidates can participate in either party primary, its pretty loose all things considered, there's no "You have to be a Democrat for X years to run in the primary" type rule.
I wholeheartedly support moving to a ranked choice or approval voting or STAR voting system but that's a different fight altogether.
Moving to national popular vote for the Pre
Not really - gerrymandering matters... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe one person - one vote, but some votes do not matter while other matter a lot due to sick electoral laws and gerrymandering...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe one person - one vote, but some votes do not matter while other matter a lot due to sick electoral laws and gerrymandering...
Not really. Reality is that the electoral college has a very minor influence. Small states get a very small advantage in the electoral college, and the electoral college and two senate seat ideas was an essential compromise to create the United States in the first place. It prevents the agricultural regions from effectively being the serfs of the urban regions. The real problem is winner take all states. If states proportionally allocated electors things would be much better. Its the states, not the elector
Re: (Score:3)
Define 'very small'. Last I checked, from the electoral college's standpoint a voter in Wyoming's vote counts 3.5x more than a voter in Texas, Florida, or California. To me, 3.5x is not 'very small'.
Re: (Score:2)
Define 'very small'.
As I previously said, 1 senator in some small states.
Last I checked, from the electoral college's standpoint a voter in Wyoming's vote counts 3.5x more than a voter in Texas, Florida, or California. To me, 3.5x is not 'very small'.
Well, you missed something else I wrote. The problem is not the electoral college itself. It is the all or nothing allocation by the STATES. 2 states do proportional, 48 do not.
Plus you ignore the who checks and balance thing, that states get a say too not just individuals, and that the high population areas cannot treat the less populous areas as serfs.
Re: (Score:2)
You're defining it by senator which doesn't make sense in this context. What matters is how many electoral college votes per capita, which is the 3.5x number I mentioned.
Proportional allocation of electoral college votes doesn't fix the imbalance caused by the disproportionate per capita voter weighting of each electoral college vote. If you want true proportionality, one person, one vote would be the most fair.
Why should low population states have more of a say per voter than high populations states when s
Re: (Score:2)
You're defining it by senator which doesn't make sense in this context.
In our system both the people and the states get say. The house proportionately represents the people, the senate the states. The electoral college is basically representatives plus senators. What can you do about the small states? Only give them one senatorial elector?
What matters is how many electoral college votes per capita, ...
That is fundamentally contrary to the intentional design of the US gov't. States and less populous regions were given a say too, so they could not be dominated by the large and densely populated. That was the compromise, the contract. It was
Re: (Score:3)
What can you do about the small states? Give all states one person = one vote for the presidential election. Then its fair to everybody.
And yes, you're right that the framers built counter-majoritarian features on purpose... no argument there. But three things:
First, that's the Senate, not the Electoral College. Equal representation regardless of population was the Connecticut Compromise. The EC came from a separate fight over how to pick the president; the small-state bump is just a side effect of borrowin
Re: (Score:2)
What can you do about the small states? Give all states one person = one vote for the presidential election. Then its fair to everybody.
No, it allows the Presidential candidates the focus on the bigger more populous regions and ignore the smaller less populous. It forces the President to consider everyone.
And yes, you're right that the framers built counter-majoritarian features on purpose... no argument there. But three things:
First, that's the Senate, not the Electoral College.
Its both, as explained above.
Second, one "region" that protected was the slaveholding South.
That's a misrepresentation, there were many smaller less populous states in the north as well. And slave holding Virginia was one of the large more populous states that would have dominated.
It weights geography, treating a rural Wyoming voter and a rural California voter completely differently.
Slightly differently. Equally represented in the Senate and the Senates contribution to the electoral college. The real fa
Re: (Score:2)
A few of these don't hold up, and one does. Let me separate them.
"It forces the President to consider everyone." It's the opposite. Under the Electoral College candidates ignore most of the country: in 2020, 96% of campaign events were in 12 states and 33 got none. Small safe states like Wyoming get ignored just like big safe states like California. What draws attention is being a swing state, not being small. And no one wins a national popular vote from cities alone; the largest metros aren't close to a ma
Re: (Score:2)
A few of these don't hold up, and one does. Let me separate them.
"It forces the President to consider everyone." It's the opposite. Under the Electoral College candidates ignore most of the country: in 2020, 96% of campaign events were in 12 states and 33 got none.
That's not the electoral college. That states that were uncompetitive, states that were already safely in the candidate's hands and states that were already in the opponents hands. The fact remains that in your scheme candidate would focus more on the more densely populated regions in those states that were competitive. The electoral college helps make sure the less populated have a voice in those states too.
Virginia was the most populous state largely because roughly 40% of its people were enslaved and they couldn't vote.
While slaves could note vote, they contributed to the number of representatives in the House. Slaver
Re: (Score:2)
On "that's not the Electoral College, those were just uncompetitive states", they're only "safe" and ignorable because of winner-take-all, which you already agreed is the problem. Under a popular vote there's no safe state to write off: a vote in California counts the same as a vote in Ohio, so no one's surplus can be ignored. The Electoral College is the very thing that makes votes in 38 states worthless.
And it only gives "the less populated a voice" in the dozen swing states. Rural voters in California, u
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, voters are secondary. Before you ever get to vote, the candidates on the ballot have been voted for with their wallets by campaign contributors, who do not contribute if there is no clear ROI for them. No contributors means no advertising means no votes. So the primary concern of any politician is to make and keep promises to the donors, and only then to figure out how to woo the voters.
Now the thing is, the interests of the donors and of the voters are often in conflict, so you usually can not keep b
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, voters are secondary. Before you ever get to vote, the candidates on the ballot have been voted for ...
By the same voters, but in the party primary elections that precede the general election.
Sometimes we also have weird flashes like AOC or Mamdani, who maybe did start out with principles ...
Nope, nearly every first time winner is elected due to the perception of having principles, about caring for something the voters believe in. The issue just changes depending on the demographics of the district. Once in, incumbents have a huge advantage regardless of performance. They just need to project caring again during the re-election.
Re: (Score:2)
Party primaries are in the $1B range now. This money comes from the same donors, not the voters, not the party, and in exactly the same way as presidentials. Sell the voters and the country out to the donors, get financing, create messaging, advertise, get votes. The same goes for all elections big or small. It's turtles all the way down.
Principles, yeah there you are just repeating what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
Money is a secondary thing ... (Score:2)
For tl;dr take a look at this study from Cambridge https://doi.org/10.1017/S15375 [doi.org]... voter preference has no correlation with policy outcomes in the US. But money does.
You are having a causation/correlation problem. Money is actually a secondary thing. It is incredible useful in building the perception that a candidate cares about an issue. To persuade the voter. Yet it is a secondary factor. The most successful and influential lobbyists (ex AARP, NRA, ...) are those that deliver voters, not money,
Again, it is voters that pick candidates, and decide their elections. You are just pointing out that voters who don't care too much about a given issue, who are not well info
Re: (Score:2)
And how does the AARP, or NRA, or anyone end up endorsing a candidate? They get a nice bite out of the campaign budget, and come to the realization that candidate x is indeed the best choice. Money spent, votes gained.
If voters decided elections, Sanders would have been president.
But you are missing my point. Who wins does not even matter. Every candidate who will be allowed to get anywhere works for the same donors, and will be delivering essentially the same policy. Your choices are candidates x, y, and z
Re: (Score:2)
And how does the AARP, or NRA, or anyone end up endorsing a candidate?
Due to the candidate's alignment with the lobbyist's beliefs. Ideology beats money.
They get a nice bite out of the campaign budget, and come to the realization that candidate x is indeed the best choice.
That is truly misinformed.
If voters decided elections, Sanders would have been president.
Nope. Bernie has always been a niche candidate. Pretty much a known socialist/communist. That plays rather poorly outside of niche districts.
Sure Bernie also suffered due to Democratic Party internal politics, but he was never a viable national candidate. Just the preferred candidate for the fringe of the democratic party that would have an inflated say in only the internal democratic primary.
Every candidate who will be allowed to get anywhere works for the same donors, ...
Abso
Re: (Score:2)
One person, one vote doesn't matter when the choices you have in the vote are all candidates approved by the establishment.
Re: (Score:2)
One person, one vote doesn't matter when the choices you have in the vote are all candidates approved by the establishment.
Actually in the two cases where we did not have real primaries where voters had a choice of candidates for their party, both of those candidates lost. 2016 and 2024.
Re: (Score:2)
How does that contradict what I said? In the end, both parties candidates are vetted by the establishment, so you get an establishment candidate no matter who wins.
Re: (Score:2)
How does that contradict what I said? In the end, both parties candidates are vetted by the establishment, so you get an establishment candidate no matter who wins.
Normally candidates are chosen by all the party's voters. The insiders cannot stop determined voters. That is how we got Barack Obama. He was introduced by the Clintons at a previous convention as a young up and comer. In a later election cycle, Hillary was supposed to be the next candidate. She had the backing of the insiders, the establishment, inserting Bill's political machine. Obama was an upset candidate chosen by the voters, defeating the establishment insider Hillary despite Bill's machine backing h
Re: (Score:2)
False. They talk about the market, but the instant it goes against the GOP & 47's agenda, it's all just fraud. Tell us about the long pieces they've done on wind and solar in the uS.