Ed Electoral College

[Belz...]

I haven't moved the goal posts anywhere. They are still planted in the middle of FPTP and how democratic it is.

Where you have moved them is anybody's guess.

Why don't you follow the conversation and see instead why I brought them up? It's not my fault if you've lost track.

 

[psionl0]

Why don't you follow the conversation and see instead why I brought them up? It's not my fault if you've lost track.

That's a lot of projecting you are doing here.

I have already posted the full context of the conversation. Your 2c is completely tangential to the discussion.

 

[Belz...]

That's a lot of projecting you are doing here.

Ah, yes. "I know you are but what am I". As usual, very mature.

I have already posted the full context of the conversation.

Exactly. YOU brought up "less than half of the votes". I was responding to YOUR comment. If that was off-topic, maybe you shouldn't have made it. Your further comment about me defending FPTP was wrong, but my comment was relevant to yours. Stop trying to "win" this stupid game of yours.

 

[psionl0]

Exactly. YOU brought up "less than half of the votes". I was responding to YOUR comment. If that was off-topic, maybe you shouldn't have made it. Your further comment about me defending FPTP was wrong, but my comment was relevant to yours. Stop trying to "win" this stupid game of yours.

I still have no idea what point you are making. Every time I try to make some sort of sense of what you are saying I get "attack the arguer" type responses.

 

[Belz...]

I still have no idea what point you are making.

Even though I told you more than once? You quoted me making that point.

I've told you that having a majority of votes is not a requirement of a democracy nor does it make the system less democratic to have a system that doesn't require a majority. Then you asked me if I defended FPTP, which I has nothing to do with my post, and then you somehow concluded that "all that stuff" about states with more than two major parties was irrelevant, even though it's exactly on topic when discussing plurality vs majority.

So what the hell is YOUR point?

Every time I try to make some sort of sense of what you are saying I get "attack the arguer" type responses.

Telling you that I was responding on topic to your comment is attacking the arguer? What are you babbling about?

 

[psionl0]

I've told you that having a majority of votes is not a requirement of a democracy nor does it make the system less democratic to have a system that doesn't require a majority.

The highlighted part is completely fallacious. No matter what your dictionary says, if more people vote against a candidate than for them and the candidate still wins than that is a less democratic result than if the candidate gained an absolute majority.

Then you asked me if I defended FPTP, which I has nothing to do with my post,

FTFP is the only system that can deliver a result like that so it is a reasonable question. Either you believe that FPTP is "democratic enough" or you don't.

and then you somehow concluded that "all that stuff" about states with more than two major parties was irrelevant, even though it's exactly on topic when discussing plurality vs majority.

This is actually an argument against a simple plurality since the more parties that put up a candidate, the more the vote is diluted and the smaller the number of votes the winning candidate needs to get elected. Candidates have been known to get elected with only 25% of the vote in electorates that use FPTP.

Preferential voting ensures that the winning candidate got an absolute majority of the vote no matter how many parties put up a candidate.

So why do you argue that a simple plurality is good enough then put up an example that contradicts that position?

 

[Belz...]

The highlighted part is completely fallacious. No matter what your dictionary says, if more people vote against a candidate than for them and the candidate still wins than that is a less democratic result than if the candidate gained an absolute majority.

In other words you are using your own definition of "democratic". I don't care about personal definitions.

FTFP is the only system that can deliver a result like that so it is a reasonable question. Either you believe that FPTP is "democratic enough" or you don't.

Either I love pizza or I don't, either, but that still has nothing to do with what I was saying.

So why do you argue that a simple plurality is good enough then put up an example that contradicts that position?

Once again: it's only a "contradiction" because you're employing your own definition of the words we're using. That's not a very efficient way of communicating.

 

[psionl0]

In other words you are using your own definition of "democratic". I don't care about personal definitions except my own.

ftfy.

Either I love pizza or I don't, either, but that still has nothing to do with what I was saying.

You say that only because under your pet definition of "democracy" pluralities/majorities are irrelevant.

Once again: it's only a "contradiction" because you're employing your own definition of the words we're using the proper definition of democracy. That's not a very efficient way of communicating with me.

ftfy.

Your problem is that you are attempting to re-define democracy in such a way that it renders majorities, FTPT, proportional representation, gerrymandering etc irrelevant.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is an argument to be made that a population as large as that of the US can not be democratically governed via any system but FPTP.

I agree that FPTP is only democratic for a given value of 'Democracy', but there is a trade-off between completeness of representation and ability to govern.
The US has the added complication of valuing the union of the states over accurate democratic representation.

I would like to remind people that the main benefit of a democracy is longevity without violent civil strife. Any system that allows for peaceful transition of power for generations will be sufficient.

 

[psionl0]

There is an argument to be made that a population as large as that of the US can not be democratically governed via any system but FPTP.

If the argument is that there would be too many parties in congress and nobody could command a majority in either house then you are completely wrong.

Minor parties very rarely win single member electorates* even with preferential voting. At best, their preferences might get the other guy elected. Since voters elect one candidate each for the HoR, Senate and even the POTUS, there is little prospect that there will not be a 2 party system anymore.

However, the winner in each electorate would more accurately reflect the will of the voters.

* Minor parties do better in mult-member electorates when proportional representation is used or when some form of MMP is employed. Such a system might prevent either of the big two gaining control of the HoR (which is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on your POV) but it is not possible to do this in the Senate or when electing the POTUS.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This is a good time to remind people that none of this overcomes the arrow impossibility theorem. We still can't convert our individual ranked preferences to a community wide ranked preference.

 

[Belz...]

Your problem is that you are attempting to re-define democracy in such a way that it renders majorities, FTPT, proportional representation, gerrymandering etc irrelevant.

How fantastically dishonest of you, after you said, point blank, that you don't care about the actual definition of the word:

No matter what your dictionary says, if more people vote against a candidate than for them and the candidate still wins than that is a less democratic result than if the candidate gained an absolute majority.

In other words, it doesn't matter to you that the actual definition of the word, not mine, doesn't require a majority in order for the system to qualify. YOU have added that to the definition because you want to shut down discussion and allow only YOUR conception of democracy to be legitimate. That's not how it works. You may see democracy as requiring a majority, but not only is there room for different interpretations, but the actual meaning of the word doesn't only allow for yours.

You can stop pretending that your own interpretation is the only valid one, because no one here is going to buy that.

A "democracy" is a political system whereby the people wield the power. It may be a large minority, or a majority. It just needs to be not a single person or a small select group. In other words, the governed are the ones with the power. That's it. You and I may prefer the larger number, but it does not change the definition.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If the argument is that there would be too many parties in congress and nobody could command a majority in either house then you are completely wrong.

Minor parties very rarely win single member electorates even with preferential voting. At best, their preferences might get the other guy elected. Since voters elect one candidate each for the HoR, Senate and even the POTUS, there is little prospect that there will not be a 2 party system anymore.

However, the winner in each electorate would more accurately reflect the will of the voters.

What do you base this on?

The US is far from homogeneous, so small parties would be able to get sizeable numbers of Representatives. Senators would have to make coalitions with a number of parties just to get elected.
Only FPTP assures a two-party system: others need minimum voter thresholds and other measures to limit the number of parties.


A two party system has the counter-intuitive advantage of providing a clear opponent: it provides less a common cause as a common enemy. This, of course, is much more inclusive than any ideology could be, and therefore giving a large fraction of the population a sense of a stake in the future of the country - at least from time to time.

 

[psionl0]

What do you base this on?

You only have to look at the history of Australia's HoR. Preferential voting has been in place since 1918 but in all that time, the house has always been dominated by the big two. An independent would have to secure at least a third of the vote in an electorate to get a chance of winning on preferences and that is very rare. Somebody who got that many votes could even win on FTPT - even if most voters would have directed their preferences to one of the big two.

 

[psionl0]

How fantastically dishonest of you, after you said, point blank, that you don't care about the actual definition of the word:



In other words, it doesn't matter to you that the actual definition of the word, not mine, doesn't require a majority in order for the system to qualify. YOU have added that to the definition because you want to shut down discussion and allow only YOUR conception of democracy to be legitimate. That's not how it works. You may see democracy as requiring a majority, but not only is there room for different interpretations, but the actual meaning of the word doesn't only allow for yours.

You can stop pretending that your own interpretation is the only valid one, because no one here is going to buy that.

A "democracy" is a political system whereby the people wield the power. It may be a large minority, or a majority. It just needs to be not a single person or a small select group. In other words, the governed are the ones with the power. That's it. You and I may prefer the larger number, but it does not change the definition.

Until you can produce the dictionary that agrees with you and tell us who's ass you pulled it out of, your definition of democracy is personal and suspect.

According to you democracy is a dichotomy; you either have it or you don't. There is no room in your definition for degrees of democracy. As far as you are concerned, as long as voters have an opportunity to vote, the election is democratic no matter who is declared the winner and no matter if gerrymandering or other tricks are employed to thwart the majority.

Therefore, according to you, DT was elected democratically and nobody has a right to complain.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

PsionIO,

you presume that the major parties would survive the transition.
But if they fracture into, say, 3 parties each, a new incoming 3rd party would be able to compete.

In European countries without FPTP, we've seen many parties come and go.

 

[Belz...]

Until you can produce the dictionary that agrees with you and tell us who's ass you pulled it out of, your definition of democracy is personal and suspect.

Ok.

a
:
government by the people; especially :
rule of the majority
b
:
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

No consensus exists on how to define democracy

A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:

There you go. Though in some cases these definitions and more say that a majority is sometimes or often understood to be a requirement, none do so without then adding qualifiers to show that it is not always so.

Your turn.

According to you democracy is a dichotomy; you either have it or you don't. There is no room in your definition for degrees of democracy.

Wrong.

 

[phiwum]

The highlighted part is completely fallacious. No matter what your dictionary says, if more people vote against a candidate than for them and the candidate still wins than that is a less democratic result than if the candidate gained an absolute majority.

This suggests that a unanimous decision is the most democratic result one can have. Is this correct, in your estimation?

 

[Belz...]

This suggests that a unanimous decision is the most democratic result one can have.

Wouldn't that be an oxymoron of sorts?

 

[psionl0]

This suggests that a unanimous decision is the most democratic result one can have. Is this correct, in your estimation?

Clearly. The greater the level of consensus, the more democratic a decision is. Similarly, if everybody votes against a decision and the decision is still made then that is the least democratic result.

These hypothetical extremes don't alter what you quoted.