Why am I wrong to like the Electoral College?

[acbytesla]

The pit falls of FPTP are well documented.

Apart from the fact that the winning candidate may have received well below 50% of the vote (in one of the local council elections where I live, the winning candidate only had about 22% of the vote), it forces a 2 party system on the nation because voters have to be strategic. If an alternative to the Democrats is popular enough, they could bleed enough votes from the Democrat candidate to allow the Republican candidate to win by default when it would otherwise have been a Democrat victory. So voters are forced to choose the candidate that they dislike less instead of the candidate they actually prefer.

Maybe you prefer that the US be a strictly 2 party system. I'm sure that the Republicans/Democrats do.

No, not really. But I'm not sure how a run off election alters a two party system The top two candidates are almost always members of those parties. Are they not?

 

[Beerina]

As for the topic, I don't care. I know the BS you trumpet as important, you pooh pooh in different contexts.

But please, do send out an amendment to the several states. I'm sure the many smaller states will readily agree to get rid of the round table they all sit at as equals, because, dammit, the great coastal concrete canyons don't have enough power as it is!


And please do send out a balanced budget amendment, so highly do you value democracy.

 

[mumblethrax]

So, how can you, with your kind heart, you are so informed, like democracy and trust it as the authorize-inator of all power wielding? Yet not, what?

Maybe it's because I'm an intellectual newbie, but I'm afraid I can't parse this.

So, yeah. Blinking neon lights calling your attention to things you, golly gee whiz, cannot imagine.

You think I can't imagine politicians showboating, or selling out their principles? No, trust me, that's easy to imagine.

I'm asking you to demonstrate that those of us opposed to the electoral college are driven only, or primarily, by brute partisan advantage.

That's the thing I think you'll have some difficulty with. You're just saying "Sometimes people are disingenuous, therefore people are always disingenuous." I shouldn't have to say what's wrong with that.

 

[mumblethrax]

As for the topic, I don't care. I know the BS you trumpet as important, you pooh pooh in different contexts.

Please find an example where I treat political equality or majority rule, or just generally not doing things in the stupidest way possible, as unimportant.

But please, do send out an amendment to the several states.

Not necessary.

And please do send out a balanced budget amendment, so highly do you value democracy.

Don't see the relationship, and as the amendment process is highly undemocratic, also don't see the point.

 

[psionl0]

No, not really. But I'm not sure how a run off election alters a two party system The top two candidates are almost always members of those parties. Are they not?

In single member electorates (or a POTUS election) it would be rare for a third party candidate to win since they would have to get more primary votes than at least one other major candidate to avoid elimination.

The point is that a 2 party system would be a voter choice and not forced on them by a FPTP system. You are free to vote for the "this party thinks exactly the same way that I do" candidate secure in the knowledge that the Republican candidate won't win by default if you do. You can direct your second preference to the Democrat candidate (or vote Democrat in a run-off election).

 

[acbytesla]

In single member electorates (or a POTUS election) it would be rare for a third party candidate to win since they would have to get more primary votes than at least one other major candidate to avoid elimination.

The point is that a 2 party system would be a voter choice and not forced on them by a FPTP system. You are free to vote for the "this party thinks exactly the same way that I do" candidate secure in the knowledge that the Republican candidate won't win by default if you do. You can direct your second preference to the Democrat candidate (or vote Democrat in a run-off election).

Aren't you just forcing a different kind of choice? And isn't that the point? Making a choice?

I'm in full agreement about parties. Thomas Jefferson was as against them as much as you and me.

 

[psionl0]

Aren't you just forcing a different kind of choice?

How so? You are giving voters the freedom to vote for whoever they want without the consequences that FPTP entails.

 

[acbytesla]

How so? You are giving voters the freedom to vote for whoever they want without the consequences that FPTP entails.

I still don't get it. 99 percent of the time, the third party candidates are going to being eliminated in the first election. Seems like a total waste of time and resources.

 

[psionl0]

I still don't get it. 99 percent of the time, the third party candidates are going to being eliminated in the first election. Seems like a total waste of time and resources.

Just think about why Trump won the 2016 election in the first place. It was because of FPTP. Because of voter satisfaction, a lot of votes were bled away from Hillary Clinton. Had it not been for FPTP, the result in some swing states could well have been different.

Maybe this video will explain it better than I can:

 

[mumblethrax]

I still don't get it. 99 percent of the time, the third party candidates are going to being eliminated in the first election. Seems like a total waste of time and resources.

It matters how they're eliminated. FPTP can result in the candidate with the most support among voters losing. If Candidate A get 49%, B gets 48% and C gets 3%, A wins. But if 90% of C's voters prefer candidate B to A, then this isn't a good reflection of voter preferences.

Another way to think about it--C's decision to enter the race is controlling of the outcome. It's unclear why C should have that kind of power, if voters prefer B to A, and C had no real chance of winning.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

In single member electorates (or a POTUS election) it would be rare for a third party candidate to win since they would have to get more primary votes than at least one other major candidate to avoid elimination.

The point is that a 2 party system would be a voter choice and not forced on them by a FPTP system. You are free to vote for the "this party thinks exactly the same way that I do" candidate secure in the knowledge that the Republican candidate won't win by default if you do. You can direct your second preference to the Democrat candidate (or vote Democrat in a run-off election).

I've previously been of the opinion that FPTP was perfectly fine for a single position vote, but you've changed my mind & I now agree this would be a much better option. Thank you. However, imho, a straight FPTP vote would still be a marked improvement on the EC.

 

[Brainster]

I still don't get it. 99 percent of the time, the third party candidates are going to being eliminated in the first election. Seems like a total waste of time and resources.

It lets the loony left indulge their desire to vote for the Greens without running the risk of handing the election to the Republicans. This will help the third parties and since politics tends to be a zero-sum game, it will not be to the benefit of the Democratic or Republican Party. Which is why it is going nowhere.

 

[psionl0]

It lets the loony left indulge their desire to vote for the Greens without running the risk of handing the election to the Republicans. This will help the third parties and since politics tends to be a zero-sum game, it will not be to the benefit of the Democratic or Republican Party. Which is why it is going nowhere.

That is not true.

Labour in the UK had a landslide victory in the UK even though it only got 33.7% of the vote. It appears that the Conservative vote was split across several parties such that it handed Labour seats galore by default. A similar spoiler effect was in play during the Thatcher years in the 1980s when the Social Democrats took a lot of votes away from the Labour party and guaranteed more than a decade of Conservative rule by default.

I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of seats in the US Congress where the spoiler effect also hands victory to the less popular candidate by default.

 

[acbytesla]

That is not true.

Labour in the UK had a landslide victory in the UK even though it only got 33.7% of the vote. It appears that the Conservative vote was split across several parties such that it handed Labour seats galore by default. A similar spoiler effect was in play during the Thatcher years in the 1980s when the Social Democrats took a lot of votes away from the Labour party and guaranteed more than a decade of Conservative rule by default.

I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of seats in the US Congress where the spoiler effect also hands victory to the less popular candidate by default.

In all fairness, they have a parliamentary system in the UK. Nobody votes for Prime Minister. They vote for individual MPs and those MPs organize the government and select the PM.

 

[psionl0]

In all fairness, they have a parliamentary system in the UK. Nobody votes for Prime Minister. They vote for individual MPs and those MPs organize the government and select the PM.

The President still needs the support of Congress. Difficult to get if the opposing party has won control of Congress thanks to the spoiler effect.

 

[acbytesla]

The President still needs the support of Congress. Difficult to get if the opposing party has won control of Congress thanks to the spoiler effect.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? From what I can see, it affects only a very small number of elections. Libertarians offset the Green party. And it always come to the conclusion that voters who saw their candidates lose in the first election would even vote in the second election. Three elections are too many IMV. I would prefer to abolish parties and have two elections. The first two would select who would run in the run off. And that would be it.

 

[mumblethrax]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? From what I can see, it affects only a very small number of elections. Libertarians offset the Green party. And it always come to the conclusion that voters who saw their candidates lose in the first election would even vote in the second election. Three elections are too many IMV. I would prefer to abolish parties and have two elections. The first two would select who would run in the run off. And that would be it.

Minor parties have relatively little support precisely because FPTP leads to a two-party system. But this isn't a true read of voter preferences.

You don't need to have new elections; a preferential ballot allows for immediate retabulation. Hence the name that's commonly used in the US--instant run-off voting.

One of the advantages of preferential ballots is that parties become less important. You don't need to have primaries to avoid the situation where you have two Republicans running against a Democrat, because preferential voting avoids the problem of vote splitting. You can just have a non-partisan general election.

 

[Brainster]

Labour in the UK had a landslide victory in the UK even though it only got 33.7% of the vote.

We desperately need some anti-Electoral College folks commenting on that particular factoid.

 

[psionl0]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? From what I can see, it affects only a very small number of elections. Libertarians offset the Green party. And it always come to the conclusion that voters who saw their candidates lose in the first election would even vote in the second election. Three elections are too many IMV. I would prefer to abolish parties and have two elections. The first two would select who would run in the run off. And that would be it.

Where you you get "three" from? At most you would have 2 ballots and the second ballot (the run off election) would only occur if no candidate got a majority in the first ballot (and, as has been pointed out, you could use "instant run-off and have only one election).

Preferential voting (as it is known in Australia) may only affect the result in a relatively small number of electorates but this is often enough to tip the balance of power in favour of the voters' real desires. As I pointed out earlier, it could also have changed the result in some swing states and given Hillary Clinton the presidency in 2016.

 

[mumblethrax]

We desperately need some anti-Electoral College folks commenting on that particular factoid.

Why? There are lots of bad ways to run elections. We don't have to discuss them all when critiquing the electoral college.