Politics And Current Events

[bhflyhigh]

I think there are a fair amount of people on the far Left that dream of a system in which the majority (in their view, them) has completely autocratic power over the minority. I don't doubt for a second that someone like Warren wouldn't hesitate to strip away rights from her ideological opposites if she was given the opportunity. In a direct democratic system, I can only imagine the unprecedented levels of propaganda and manipulation we would see, beyond even what we see every two years now.

I think that the electoral college has served it's purpose and isn't really necessary any longer. Why would anyone be against abolishing it?

Also, if you want to tackle the propaganda and manipulation, we need to rethink allowing massive amounts of dark money to influence elections.

[AuthorTony]

Is there any good reason why there can't be a compromise and have electoral votes doled out proportionally, rather than winner take all (in almost every state)? Not only does a winner take all system basically guarantee that 3rd party candidates have no chance, but it makes the votes of people in any state which isn't a battleground practically worthless.

[Tomas]

Is there any good reason why there can't be a compromise and have electoral votes doled out proportionally, rather than winner take all (in almost every state)? Not only does a winner take all system basically guarantee that 3rd party candidates have no chance, but it makes the votes of people in any state which isn't a battleground practically worthless.

That. Which incidentally also makes any *current* claims regarding popular vote "victory" unreliable/worthless. Nobody knows how many extra people wold vote for R in CA, NY, how many extra people would vote for D in TX, etc... The only sure thing is that EC is stupid beyond any boundaries....

[Freddy Rumsen]

Liz Warren is a complete moron who is lying.

I think there are a fair amount of people on the far Left that dream of a system in which the majority (in their view, them) has completely autocratic power over the minority. I don't doubt for a second that someone like Warren wouldn't hesitate to strip away rights from her ideological opposites if she was given the opportunity. In a direct democratic system, I can only imagine the unprecedented levels of propaganda and manipulation we would see, beyond even what we see every two years now.

Well, the fact that the Electoral College is the worst possible electoral system in the Universe has nothing to do with autocratic power, but everything to do with the fact that EC is a system that, by design, allows a huge discontinuity outcome, leading to a fair chance that a random error will decide the outcome of the election.

Popular vote (with possibly over-weighing the votes from the small states) is the only fair system in the 21st Century.

The Electoral College is the absolute best way to determine a leader in a Presidential system where the President is both Head-of-State and Head-of-Government.

It is the fairest and most equitable manner for a large, divergent, and divided (geographically, ideologically, etc...) nation to elect for that office.

[tifosi77]

It is possible to win the Electoral College with as little as 23% of the electorate. This is 'equitable' in the expanded Freddyverse.

[count2infinity]

Seems pretty obvious that the only people who are in favor of the EC are those that benefit from it.

[Troy Loney]

It’s somehow better for the rural parts to have disproportional representation than for urban areas to have equal rep.

[grunthy]

Seems pretty obvious that the only people who are in favor of the EC are those that benefit from it.

Maybe the candidates shouldn’t skip visiting Michigan, Wisconsin and such. So instead of complain about the EC system, maybe they should actually care about the whole country.

[grunthy]

Seems pretty obvious that the only people who are in favor of the EC are those that benefit from it.

People that understand we are a republic not a democracy are in favor of it.

[AuthorTony]

Seems pretty obvious that the only people who are in favor of the EC are those that benefit from it.

People that understand we are a republic not a democracy are in favor of it.

How is it beneficial to have the votes of over 5 million Californians who did not vote for Hillary mean absolutely nothing? Or over 3 million New Yorkers? And who knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands might skip voting entirely because their state is predetermined and their vote is worthless. I feel like a proportional system would encourage more people to vote, and also give third parties a (slim) chance. I don't see how any of that is a bad thing.

[count2infinity]

Seems pretty obvious that the only people who are in favor of the EC are those that benefit from it.

People that understand we are a republic not a democracy are in favor of it.

How is it beneficial to have the votes of over 5 million Californians who did not vote for Hillary mean absolutely nothing? Or over 3 million New Yorkers? And who knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands might skip voting entirely because their state is predetermined and their vote is worthless. I feel like a proportional system would encourage more people to vote, and also give third parties a (slim) chance. I don't see how any of that is a bad thing.

It's bad because then they no longer benefit from it...

[AuthorTony]

It's bad because then they no longer benefit from it...

if my memory is correct, Romney would have beat Obama under a proportional system so it goes both ways. I just don't see the downside. It would make every state matter again, not just the battlegrounds.

[Shyster]

How is it beneficial to have the votes of over 5 million Californians who did not vote for Hillary mean absolutely nothing?

I heartily approve of any system that negates the votes of Californians. I wish it could negate all of their votes.

[Tomas]

Liz Warren is a complete moron who is lying.

I think there are a fair amount of people on the far Left that dream of a system in which the majority (in their view, them) has completely autocratic power over the minority. I don't doubt for a second that someone like Warren wouldn't hesitate to strip away rights from her ideological opposites if she was given the opportunity. In a direct democratic system, I can only imagine the unprecedented levels of propaganda and manipulation we would see, beyond even what we see every two years now.

Well, the fact that the Electoral College is the worst possible electoral system in the Universe has nothing to do with autocratic power, but everything to do with the fact that EC is a system that, by design, allows a huge discontinuity outcome, leading to a fair chance that a random error will decide the outcome of the election.

Popular vote (with possibly over-weighing the votes from the small states) is the only fair system in the 21st Century.

The Electoral College is the absolute best way to determine a leader in a Presidential system where the President is both Head-of-State and Head-of-Government.

It is the fairest and most equitable manner for a large, divergent, and divided (geographically, ideologically, etc...) nation to elect for that office.

There is no valid reason for what EC accomplishes that the proportional system cannot. Definitely not the "smaller states have more say." A few days after the 2016 Elections I showed here that Clinton would have won the elections even if we re-counted everything in terms of "California votes" - that is, if we gave every state the vote weight that is proportional to the vote-shares coming from EC (that is, if we effectively over-weigh every "small" state). In fact, the margin of the difference would have changed rather insignificantly. (Alternatively, one can see this as Electoral vote count if each party keeps the proportion of votes in each state.)

As I said, the main reason why EC is mathematically a stupid model is the singularity it introduces. That is, especially for the big "battleground" states, an arbitrarily small difference in the state vote . 2016 elections weren't won by Trump because of the "small guys". The chief reason for the victory was that 77,700 votes (0.057 PERCENT of the total votes cast) swung the electoral count by (16+20+10)/538 = 8.55 PERCENT. This is nothing against Trump - he won fair and square. But any system that creates a singularity like that is inherently awful.

[Freddy Rumsen]

The Constitutional convention understood the issues and debated them. All the things you say are brought up in the papers written at the time.

A far bigger issue is the primary system that selects the major party candidates.

[Kaiser]

The bigger issue is that we are unable to change it to fit the times without turning into s*** throwing chimpanzees.

[MR25]

The Constitutional convention understood the issues and debated them. All the things you say are brought up in the papers written at the time.

A far bigger issue is the primary system that selects the major party candidates.

And those were written when there were only 13 states to keep track of and we had 1/100th of the population.

Perhaps we're at a point where maybe we need to modernize our voting system?

[tifosi77]

“[T]he office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” -- Also in the papers written at the time as a rationale for the EC. Has worked out swimmingly.

[Freddy Rumsen]

The Constitutional convention understood the issues and debated them. All the things you say are brought up in the papers written at the time.

A far bigger issue is the primary system that selects the major party candidates.

And those were written when there were only 13 states to keep track of and we had 1/100th of the population.

Perhaps we're at a point where maybe we need to modernize our voting system?

One of the ways in which they would think bizarre is how we've capped the number of members of the house of representatives at 435. According to their understanding we should have a house of about 1,000 members, which would get things back in order imo.

[Troy Loney]

Time to adopt a parliamentary style of government.

The legislative branch has neutered itself and the parties cannot be counted on to nominate competent leaders for president.

[Freddy Rumsen]

“[T]he office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” -- Also in the papers written at the time as a rationale for the EC. Has worked out swimmingly.

Patrick Henry wrote at the time that he hopes the EC would lead to a backwoodsman to be President.

Of course ironically the first president was not one with proper qualifications in the sense of that quote.

[faftorial]

Time to adopt a parliamentary style of government.

The legislative branch has neutered itself and the parties cannot be counted on to nominate competent leaders for president.

Nothing stopping anyone from creating a new party.

[faftorial]

The Constitutional convention understood the issues and debated them. All the things you say are brought up in the papers written at the time.

A far bigger issue is the primary system that selects the major party candidates.

You want to dictate to private organizations how they nominate their candidates?

[Troy Loney]

Time to adopt a parliamentary style of government.

The legislative branch has neutered itself and the parties cannot be counted on to nominate competent leaders for president.

Nothing stopping anyone from creating a new party.

It’s not starting a new party, it’s the levers of government being controlled by the dems and reps

[faftorial]

Time to adopt a parliamentary style of government.

The legislative branch has neutered itself and the parties cannot be counted on to nominate competent leaders for president.

Nothing stopping anyone from creating a new party.

It’s not starting a new party, it’s the levers of government being controlled by the dems and reps

It's not easy.