Ed Electoral College

[marplots]

In terms of voter-representation (i.e., whether one voter's vote "counts" for as much as another), there's no subjectivity here. Lower population states are over-represented. We may wonder whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but the basic facts are clear.

Disagree. The math needs underlying assumptions and definitions to give it meaning. The numbers alone are not enough.

For example, suppose I have a small state where a large majority of voters votes for the Democratic candidate. I contrast it with another state where the citizens are more evenly split but where a lower percentage of the population votes.

Running the numbers, we'd find that the citizens of the small state are under-represented, since more people actually voted for the winner (increasing the denominator) and in the large state, voters are over-represented (since fewer, on a per capita basis, actually match the outcome in the Electoral College).

We can say, "Wait a minute, those people were free to vote or not..." but the fact remains that in that particular election, the citizens of the smaller state have less of a say - per vote, per elector - than in the large state.

It isn't the case that one description is "objective" and hence correct, it's the case that there are more than one way to organize the numbers, more than one "objective" to be had. It's the ranking of these objective data which introduces the subjective element. None can claim superiority based on mathematics alone.

 

[WilliamSeger]

"Over-represented" is not a mathematical term. It's a subjective interpretation applied to data. It's a value judgement.

Baloney. If a California elector represents 3.7 times more people than a Wyoming elector, then it's mathematical correct to say that Wyoming people are over-represented in the system. Your "value judgement" is simply that this over-representation is okay with you, provided that you like which geographic areas have that advantage.

 

[Babbylonian]

If it was really about state sovereignty then the system would require a plurality of states for a presidential candidate to win. This isn't the way it works of course because that would be a little too obviously unfair. So, instead of being patently unfair, it's just very unfair.

The electoral college is an affront to democratic ideals. That's not an opinion; it's truth. There is no acceptable compromise because retaining the institution in any form is only reasonable to those who have no interest in facts.

 

[Beerina]

The system you describe doesn't address the fact that states with low populations are over represented in the distribution of electoral votes. Why should Alaska get 1 electoral vote for every ~183K residents of voting age when California only gets 1 for every ~539K, nearly a 3-1 difference?

source

There was a case where Wyoming or somewhere lost one congressman, and hence one electoral vote, to make them go from 400k to 800k per congressmen (less difference for electoral votes) so California could go from 540 to 520 or something.

The exact opposite argument you use was used here, as it related to congressmen per population. Then, people forthrightly stood up and said, "Well, that's how the math works out, sorry!"


Anyway, this ignores the idea of the federal government being a creation of The States as well as The People, so arguments starting from "The People and only the people" set out to argue the premise they start with.

Long and short: It won't happen without an amendment, and that requires 3/4 of the states, or 37, for approval (not to mention the Senate.)

Good luck convincing all those tiny red states you have **** on verbally for a year and a half that they should reduce their own power to make the coastal concrete canyons even more powerful.







No, seriously. Good luck.

 

[marplots]

The electoral college is an affront to democratic ideals. That's not an opinion; it's truth. There is no acceptable compromise because retaining the institution in any form is only reasonable to those who have no interest in facts.

Well heck. How silly of us to discuss it when it's so plainly obvious to the casual observer.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If it was really about state sovereignty then the system would require a plurality of states for a presidential candidate to win. This isn't the way it works of course because that would be a little too obviously unfair. So, instead of being patently unfair, it's just very unfair.

The electoral college is an affront to democratic ideals. That's not an opinion; it's truth. There is no acceptable compromise because retaining the institution in any form is only reasonable to those who have no interest in facts.

Good thing then that democratic ideals are not the only ones that matter.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done.

It just seems odd when you could even up just a few counties and have a large popular vote advantage disappear.

There's a ~1.7 million popular vote difference in Los Angeles County alone. That could easily elect a president in a popular vote contest.

I think a popular vote election might tilt heavily towards Democrats, as they seem to dominate the big population centers, and it would be a long time before any other party won the Presidency.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Well heck. How silly of us to discuss it when it's so plainly obvious to the casual observer.

Well heck, it is plainly obvious that the current system is undemocratic; the discussion is about whether or not that's okay.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Long and short: It won't happen without an amendment, and that requires 3/4 of the states, or 37, for approval (not to mention the Senate.)

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact doesn't require an amendment, and it is a democratic way to fix an undemocratic system. When NPVIC passes in enough states to represent a simple majority in the Electoral Collage, which I believe will happen now, the EC system becomes irrelevant.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact doesn't require an amendment, and it is a democratic way to fix an undemocratic system. When NPVIC passes in enough states to represent a simple majority in the Electoral Collage, which I believe will happen now, the EC system becomes irrelevant.

I prefer just expanding the house. Heck, let's just take it to the Constitutional limit of 30,000 and go to 10,825 representatives.

 

[marplots]

Well heck, it is plainly obvious that the current system is undemocratic; the discussion is about whether or not that's okay.

But it is democratic. The problem arises because of a misunderstanding of what the term means. There is no abstract concept which meets the unquestioned ideal and worse, no possible application of that concept if there really was one.

It's a mistake to think "democratic voting system" will avoid all criticisms drawn from the same bucket. Systems are not more or less democratic, just democratic with different emphases.

For example, we do not allow 17-year-olds to vote. Should we? Would it be more or less democratic to do so? What about incarcerated Federal prisoners who are citizens? What about senile old people?

There is no right answer to these questions, nor is the electoral college system less democratic except in the minds of those who've already convinced themselves the question is a) answerable and b) isn't being informed by a confirmation bias.

 

[WilliamSeger]

But it is democratic. The problem arises because of a misunderstanding of what the term means. There is no abstract concept which meets the unquestioned ideal and worse, no possible application of that concept if there really was one.

It's a mistake to think "democratic voting system" will avoid all criticisms drawn from the same bucket. Systems are not more or less democratic, just democratic with different emphases.

Baloney. In its simplest definition, democracy means majority rule -- the majority of the people that is, not the majority of the land mass. Any system that doesn't guarantee that result (and the EC clearly doesn't) is undemocratic.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Baloney. In it's simplest definition, democracy means majority rule -- the majority of the people that is, not the majority of the land mass. Any system that doesn't guarantee that result (and the EC clearly doesn't) is undemocratic.

But that isn't the only definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

 

[Babbylonian]

I think a popular vote election might tilt heavily towards Democrats, as they seem to dominate the big population centers, and it would be a long time before any other party won the Presidency.

That only applies if the parties remain stagnant. The Republican party has actually regressed since Reagan and Bush I, which is why you have the above thinking. Reagan absolutely crushed Mondale in both the popular and electoral counts and George HW Bush won handily against Dukakis despite history and a popular perception that he was weak. Frankly, Bush (a President who was in charge of a decisive war victory) probably could have beaten Clinton if it hadn't been for his "no new taxes" pledge which weakened his support in a Republican party that was in the process of abandoning even the pretense of political compromise.

Too late to make a long story short but the bottom line is that Republicans absolutely could win in more urban centers if their policies and candidates were at all reasonable instead of attempts to recapture a utopian past that never truly existed.

 

[marplots]

Baloney. In it's simplest definition, democracy means majority rule -- the majority of the people that is, not the majority of the land mass. Any system that doesn't guarantee that result (and the EC clearly doesn't) is undemocratic.

Under that definition, and to show why the abstract doesn't work, I would like to buy a car. From whom should I get permission if I am to be ruled by the majority? Well, a plurality of other citizens, I suppose. But wait again, who should be a citizen?

It turns out no one cares much about me and my car purchase. In fact, I can't get anyone to vote for the car I like. There is however, a block of car dealers and their families who care deeply and vote for me to pay double what I thought I could afford.

This is an odd sort of democracy, but it meets the rule of the majority principle well enough, except there seems to be no mechanism to mandate a majority or set limits on what it will mean to rule.

In this thread "democratic" and "democracy" is being thrown around as if it were handed down by Moses at Athens, as if it were some ideal we all agree on, the unexamined "something" I can rally my troops around and woe unto him who questions!

 

[WilliamSeger]

Under that definition, and to show why the abstract doesn't work, I would like to buy a car. From whom should I get permission if I am to be ruled by the majority? Well, a plurality of other citizens, I suppose. But wait again, who should be a citizen?

It turns out no one cares much about me and my car purchase. In fact, I can't get anyone to vote for the car I like. There is however, a block of car dealers and their families who care deeply and vote for me to pay double what I thought I could afford.

This is an odd sort of democracy, but it meets the rule of the majority principle well enough, except there seems to be no mechanism to mandate a majority or set limits on what it will mean to rule.

Wouldn't it be easier to just admit that you were wrong?

In this thread "democratic" and "democracy" is being thrown around as if it were handed down by Moses at Athens, as if it were some ideal we all agree on, the unexamined "something" I can rally my troops around and woe unto him who questions!

Baloney again. In this thread, it's been well recognized that some people rather prefer the undemocratic EC system because they fear that democracy puts them at a disadvantage.

 

[WilliamSeger]

But that isn't the only definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Right; they have a very different definition in Russia.

 

[marplots]

Wouldn't it be easier to just admit that you were wrong?



Baloney again. In this thread, it's been well recognized that some people rather prefer the undemocratic EC system because they fear that democracy puts them at a disadvantage.

This is one of those Curse of Knowledge things, isn't it?

The EC is not an undemocratic system. But I think I'd rather just point to some of the issues to demonstrate the depth of the topic instead: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/

 

[LTC8K6]

That only applies if the parties remain stagnant. The Republican party has actually regressed since Reagan and Bush I, which is why you have the above thinking. Reagan absolutely crushed Mondale in both the popular and electoral counts and George HW Bush won handily against Dukakis despite history and a popular perception that he was weak. Frankly, Bush (a President who was in charge of a decisive war victory) probably could have beaten Clinton if it hadn't been for his "no new taxes" pledge which weakened his support in a Republican party that was in the process of abandoning even the pretense of political compromise.

Too late to make a long story short but the bottom line is that Republicans absolutely could win in more urban centers if their policies and candidates were at all reasonable instead of attempts to recapture a utopian past that never truly existed.

I think in our Twitter and Facebook and Instagram news, and short attention span society, it might be far too easy to influence a popular vote election.

 

[WilliamSeger]

This is one of those Curse of Knowledge things, isn't it?

The EC is not an undemocratic system. But I think I'd rather just point to some of the issues to demonstrate the depth of the topic instead: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/

Gee, didn't have to read very far:

1. Democracy Defined

To fix ideas, the term “democracy,” as I will use it in this article, refers very generally to a method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making.

What "kind of equality among participants" is represented in a system where the value of your presidential vote depends on where you live?