Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[Dill]

(10-23-2017, 07:55 PM)hollodero Wrote: I see.... yet, you still want to split the electors for each state. For me, that's close enough.


I insist that this does not have anything to do with voting rights, but with the law of the land. In the very principle, no voting system could protect from that. Being for more state rights as a whole isn't linked to overrepresentation of smaller states... at least in my fine little theory. Advocating inbalance always struck me as strange; so I might see the reasoning, I do still think that overrepresenting certain states isn't the right way to correct things. Maybe it is though, what do I know really.

I know half of the people in your country don't bother to vote, and that is astonishing and, in my opinion, alarming. I always guessed your whole winner takes all and unbalanced voting system has something to do with that. I also would gladly leave that to you if the whole world weren't affected by what I consider to be the result of that broad disinterest.

Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Alaska and tiny Delaware each have 3 electors. Someone will always do a little better in each state.

We are not talking about "voting rights." We are talking about state/territorial representation. And in the US, the states rights are recognized not to favor OVER representation, but to BALANCE representation. One is only concerned about this precisely because of how that balance affects the "law of the land." That was what animated the debate over slavery for 90 years in the US.

Over time, imbalances can certainly develop, and should be addressed. Where you and I differ, perhaps, is that I am not ready to throw out the original framework for checking and balancing these territorial and population differences.

Comparing your situation in Austria to the US is like comparing ancient Athens to first century BC Rome, or maybe Austria to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  Or maybe Austria to the EU, were that a federal system and you a state thereof. Think of corporate dominate France and Germany arguing one man one vote on policies regarding strip mining in Austria.

[hollodero]

(10-24-2017, 01:33 AM)Dill Wrote: Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Alaska and tiny Delaware each have 3 electors. Someone will always do a little better in each state.

We are not talking about "voting rights." We are talking about state/territorial representation. And in the US, the states rights are recognized not to favor OVER representation, but to BALANCE representation. One is only concerned about this precisely because of how that balance affects the "law of the land." That was what animated the debate over slavery for 90 years in the US.

I get the point.
On the other hand, needing 90 year long debates to settle things isn't quite the impressive resumé for a system overall, under a certain perspective at least. But I do not intend to overstep.

PS "voting rights" might have been the wrong expression to use.

(10-24-2017, 01:33 AM)Dill Wrote: Comparing your situation in Austria to the US is like comparing ancient Athens to first century BC Rome, or maybe Austria to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  Or maybe Austria to the EU, were that a federal system and you a state thereof. Think of corporate dominate France and Germany arguing one man one vote on policies regarding strip mining in Austria.

Aaah... but I didn't mean to compare 1:1 with my country and we sure are in vastly different positions. But the reason why Germany doesn't just start mining in our beautiful mountains is not that their weight in the EU is held in check by overrepresenting Malta in the EU parliament. I know I'm oversimplifying it and that this wasn't your entire point, but in general it's more the law of nations and the statutes of the EU making sure of that. And they could theoretically change to our disadvantage, as could your constitution, so I do get that aspect. But I think the risk these changes are ignited by the one person one vote principe is small. And on the other hand I feel it's hard to deny the scent of fairness to an one person one vote principle in one great nation, at least when it elects one president for all Americans. Can't add further points to that, I just see that point and it might indeed just be my upbringing.

Should something change?