Ed Electoral College

[phiwum]

And how low should the vote go before you question its democratic value?

In 1992 Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the national vote. 57% of the voters didn't want him. Other than the EC system, the main reason that Clinton won was because Ross Perot split the conservative vote.

Had there been a run-off election between Clinton and GHB, GHB would most likely have been the winner. Do you still argue that Clinton's election is more democratic?

I certainly said nothing about which system is "more" democratic. I don't see the question as well-posed. I just think that it is fair to call a system democratic whether it chooses the candidate with a plurality of votes or forces a runoff if no majority is received.

But this question about which is "more democratic" seems to presume a well-defined meaning for the term and that just ain't there. We would have to first settle on what values make a system more or less democratic.

 

[uke2se]

So you are not really interested in democracy. You just want a system that gives the candidate of your choice a greater chance of winning.

Please quote the entirety of my post. Also, please stop your attempted mind reading. I've addressed your complaint. Be honest about it at least.

 

[uke2se]

If you look at California (55), Pennsylvania (21) and New York (31) which typically (except for a few elections in recent times) trend as blue states thats 107 electoral votes from three states. The only state that votes reliable red with anything near those is Texas. Which leaves republican candidates relying on swing states to get to 270. This is in part to do with the fact that the states with the highest EC count are also home to some of the most populous urban centers which themselves trend blue

And you're telling me i'm full of crap? .-.

I'm not calling it a bias because i think its rigged that way. Thats literally how the rep counts worknout bybstate populations

Yes, you are full of crap. Or rather, your argument is. Compared to population size, small rural states are over represented. Small rural states vote predominantly red.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, you are full of crap. Or rather, your argument is. Compared to population size, small rural states are over represented. Small rural states vote predominantly red.

Even if they are over represented, that wasn't grizzly's argument. Even with the overrepresented states, Democrats have a starting electoral advantage each election.

 

[phiwum]

Even if they are over represented, that wasn't grizzly's argument. Even with the overrepresented states, Democrats have a starting electoral advantage each election.

Yes, but that advantage is less than if we went with a straight popular vote. One can't say that it's unfair that more people vote Democrat.

Grizzly is saying that the rural states are ignored due to the electoral system, but their overrepresentation is often defended on grounds that without it, no one would campaign in rural states. There is more bang for the buck in densely populated areas.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, but that advantage is less than if we went with a straight popular vote. One can't say that it's unfair that more people vote Democrat.

.

Yes, one can say that is unfair.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, but that advantage is less than if we went with a straight popular vote. One can't say that it's unfair that more people vote Democrat.

Grizzly is saying that the rural states are ignored due to the electoral system, but their overrepresentation is often defended on grounds that without it, no one would campaign in rural states. There is more bang for the buck in densely populated areas.

Which is obscene, and an indication of how grossly undemocratic the EC system is.

 

[phiwum]

Which is obscene, and an indication of how grossly undemocratic the EC system is.

Sorry, but I think that there's a nonsequitur there.

The EC is defended on grounds that it increases participation among rural states. This does not mean that such a goal is particularly "democratic", but rather that this is one of the good things the EC provides.

Of course, you and I may doubt whether it's a good effect. I don't really have much opinion, and so I'm not necessarily supporting the idea that this effect is good.

 

[phiwum]

Yes, one can say that is unfair.

Okay, let me just see if I understand you.

A democratic system is unfair whenever one party has better voter turnout than another. Fairness requires nigh equal turnout. Is this your opinion?

Because I think it's mindboggling. Democracy aims at rational self-governing, not a fifty-fifty split. What matters is that the voters make decisions, not that each side has an equal chance to win.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Okay, let me just see if I understand you.

A democratic system is unfair whenever one party has better voter turnout than another. Fairness requires nigh equal turnout. Is this your opinion?

Because I think it's mindboggling. Democracy aims at rational self-governing, not a fifty-fifty split. What matters is that the voters make decisions, not that each side has an equal chance to win.

I'm not one of the people that would say it is unfair.

 

[phiwum]

I'm not one of the people that would say it is unfair.

Ah, so when you said, "One can say that is unfair," you weren't defending that view. Yeah, okay, people do say ridiculous things, and this is among the ridiculous things that one might say.

One can also say pistachio ice cream is chock full of liberty, I guess.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Ah, so when you said, "One can say that is unfair," you weren't defending that view. Yeah, okay, people do say ridiculous things, and this is among the ridiculous things that one might say.

One can also say pistachio ice cream is chock full of liberty, I guess.

Exactly.

 

[psionl0]

I certainly said nothing about which system is "more" democratic. I don't see the question as well-posed. I just think that it is fair to call a system democratic whether it chooses the candidate with a plurality of votes or forces a runoff if no majority is received.

But this question about which is "more democratic" seems to presume a well-defined meaning for the term and that just ain't there. We would have to first settle on what values make a system more or less democratic.

Your attempt to sit on the fence is not convincing.

If a runoff election makes a difference as to who gets elected then you can't say it doesn't matter. You would need to make a decision about who is more entitled to have the office. They do not have equal "democratic" or "fair" value.

 

[phiwum]

Your attempt to sit on the fence is not convincing.

If a runoff election makes a difference as to who gets elected then you can't say it doesn't matter. You would need to make a decision about who is more entitled to have the office. They do not have equal "democratic" or "fair" value.

I didn't say that it doesn't matter. I said I have no opinion about which system is more democratic or fair. It's not at all obvious to me.

I think this is one of those things that different nations can settle differently, but that there's not a clear consensus on which is more fair. I'm not sure why you think I must really have an opinion on this matter. It's just not obvious to me.

If the primary aim is to avoid a candidate that most people voted against, then runoffs make sense. I don't see why that must be the primary aim. I don't see a clear, objective reason that electing the candidate that the largest group of voters selected is inherently unfair or undemocratic.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

.
Grizzly is saying that the rural states are ignored due to the electoral system, but their overrepresentation is often defended on grounds that without it, no one would campaign in rural states. There is more bang for the buck in densely populated areas.

Im not saying they're ignored. It would however change the dynamic of how candidates campaigned. When you have over half of the populous confimed to 3 or 4 states with the greatest impact... where do you think campaigns will focus for the highest voter count? The starting advantage granted by high EC states literally means that even having a higher proportional representation as you argue... isnt enough on its own to overcome it. Your bang for buck issue is relevant but not to what i am getting at. You need to read what I am posting... really trying to be clear about the distinctions so members like yourself arent confused

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, you are full of crap. Or rather, your argument is. Compared to population size, small rural states are over represented. Small rural states vote predominantly red.

The over representation issue is something I've already accounted for. Despite that the EC make up grants a 100+ typical EC head start to democrats because big states house large urban centers... Even with the over representation... winning conservative candidates have to win more of them plus swing states to often compensate.

You're missing the point. And again... I'm not suggesting this is some rigged ploy so that democrats can win each cycle. Thise large EC states in spite of the representation issue youre raising... still have high EC counts because they're highly populated and thats a rough metric by which EC's are determined

 

[WilliamSeger]

Your attempt to sit on the fence is not convincing.

If a runoff election makes a difference as to who gets elected then you can't say it doesn't matter. You would need to make a decision about who is more entitled to have the office. They do not have equal "democratic" or "fair" value.

I don't understand why you keep using that as an argument against NPV and in favor of the EC when the state elections for EC are also "first past the post," on top of the unequal representation. What if those states where neither got 50% had a runoff between Clinton and Trump?

The way I see it, with the primary system and the polling that determines the top two candidates, the general election is a sort of run-off where some voters effectively abstain by voting 3rd party.

 

[WilliamSeger]

The over representation issue is something I've already accounted for. Despite that the EC make up grants a 100+ typical EC head start to democrats because big states house large urban centers... Even with the over representation... winning conservative candidates have to win more of them plus swing states to often compensate.
You're missing the point. And again... I'm not suggesting this is some rigged ploy so that democrats can win each cycle. Thise large EC states in spite of the representation issue youre raising... still have high EC counts because they're highly populated and thats a rough metric by which EC's are determined

What's wrong with the idea that a Presidential candidate should appeal to both rural and urban voters, and in every state? If that's not the case, what's your argument for giving conservatives an advantage?

 

[psionl0]

I don't understand why you keep using that as an argument against NPV and in favor of the EC when the state elections for EC are also "first past the post," on top of the unequal representation. What if those states where neither got 50% had a runoff between Clinton and Trump?

I am not defending the EC in its current form. In particular, the "winner takes all" mentality in each state has the potential to seriously distort election results as it did in this case. Unfortunately, as long as it is up to the states, this aspect won't change. (If California had to give nearly half its EC votes to a Republican then it would have had even less influence on getting a Democrat elected).

As the OP pointed out:

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

You would still have needed a runoff election for one of the two to get the magic 270 number but clearly, Hillary would have been in the box seat under this system.

Curiously, nobody seems to be interested in a fairer outcome. They are more interested in the ideological position of diminishing the say that smaller states have in an election even though this vote weighting has a much smaller effect on the outcome than the way that votes are counted does.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What's wrong with the idea that a Presidential candidate should appeal to both rural and urban voters, and in every state? If that's not the case, what's your argument for giving conservatives an advantage?

Again... you like phiwum are dealing with a different angle of the discussion. When i made mention that the EC was biased in facor of democrats I pointed out why I was making that case. As far as what the parties do or do not need to appeal to both rural and urban areas.... no, no, and no. They would still need to appeal in some form or another because the rural areas still account for half of the population. When you break it down to state by state based on how states trend each cycle my point is that republicans must rely on winning more states to account for the 3 states that give a head start to democrats.

Whats more is i dont care for swinging to conservative's advantage. If it were my decision the EC would allocate votes proportionally. The issue of how democrats have a starting advantage in the EC and republican candidates having to win more states overall to catch up is just an observation of how states have voted by precedent and how EC's are currently allocated state by state... and winner take all. This is often an observation made in news cycles from what i recall considering they usually comment on the longer road to 270 and did so even for this past election.

I hope that clarifies.

I have nothing to answer for your question because its not my argument that something outright should give one party advantage over another