How big of a vote gap would it take for you to drop the Electoral College?

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2019, 12:11 PM)Dill Wrote: Hollo has an excuse: he grew up in Central Europe, the over-regulated cradle of European socialism.

But you are breathing the free air of Madison's and Jefferson's Virginia.  No excuse for ignoring the role of individual states in our federal system.

I think some of our list friends have all along been thinking we're the UVA--United Voters of America--rather than the U.S.A.

In your last post to me you approved Madison's notion of Electors elected from districts.  So you are not against the EC, just want to reform it? Willing to compromise?
Have I understood you?

Of course I am willing to compromise, that is what politics is all about. That notion of Madison's was itself a compromise, still unconvinced that the slave states would accept direct popular vote. I would throw in the caveat, though, that in order for the compromise to be palatable, representation would need to be increased such that there is no disparity in the number of citizens per Elector between the states that exceeds 1.5:1. Meaning in no state should it take twice or more as many people to make up one Electoral vote as it does in another state.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-04-2019, 12:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Of course I am willing to compromise, that is what politics is all about. That notion of Madison's was itself a compromise, still unconvinced that the slave states would accept direct popular vote. I would throw in the caveat, though, that in order for the compromise to be palatable, representation would need to be increased such that there is no disparity in the number of citizens per Elector between the states that exceeds 1.5:1. Meaning in no state should it take twice or more as many people to make up one Electoral vote as it does in another state.

Legit question. Won't that be fixed in 2020 with the next census when the populations are re-calculated and votes evened out?

I admittedly might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that was at least in part why the whole citizenship question on the census was such a big deal. To prevent non-citizens from counting towards EC votes (and House Representatives).

[*bfine32*]

(04-04-2019, 01:19 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Legit question. Won't that be fixed in 2020 with the next census when the populations are re-calculated and votes evened out?

I admittedly might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that was at least in part why the whole citizenship question on the census was such a big deal. To prevent non-citizens from counting towards EC votes (and House Representatives).

This is a good question and maybe one that someone more in the weeds can answer. Seems those that feel the EC is unfair would welcome an accurate count of citizens so we can adjust the pool as required.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2019, 09:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would again have to disagree. The reason Madison didn't think the national popular vote would work? Slave states wouldn't be for it because it would take power away from them. That is the biggest reason this compromise solution was pushed forward. The other big reason is because the average voter would not know the presidential candidates, so there would be an indirect election. Those were the intentions, and those aren't an issue anymore.

I agree, the EC now functions in a way not entirely designed or intended, but definitely in line with the Framers principles.

Quote:That's not what rural means, though. I get that your perception is skewed, I deal with that all the time with students from NoVA, Jersey, and the like. But a small city can still be an urban center.

We're still having a semantic disagreement.  I am cognizant that Milwaukee is an urban center, it's just a very big one.  I am using rural in the sense that it's not a major population center like NYC or LA.

Quote:Maybe it's because I'm involved in politics a bit too much, but no. I am willing to take advantage of momentum like this. A decade ago, the majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents wanted to get rid of the EC and it still hasn't happened yet. If this can help make it happen, I'm for it.

Fair enough, it's obvious we have a fundamental disagreement on this issue.

Quote:If we're talking about election equity we're talking about the individual level. One person, one vote.

Yes, and one person does have one vote, in their state.  I understand your position on the disproportional EC votes per capita.  Again, we just fundamentally disagree on this issue.

Quote:I think on this one, we would just have to disagree.

Paradoxically, agreed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-04-2019, 12:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: The EC doesn't effective make the states "equal despite population differences" though anyway. Because I feel that would have to mean every state gets the same amount of electors. Since that isn't the case, the principle doesn't seem to stand anyway?

Equal in terms of the number of EC votes, no.  Equal in that they all have an "individual" say, yes.

Quote:I don't feel I'm doing that - I sure would - but I don't think going with the popular vote for POTUS elections dismantles the entire system of governance. I don't see the compelling coherence there at all.
Now getting rid of the two senators per state, which I absolutely would deem more fair, possibly would do so. But I'm not arguing that, nor do I see it as a logical consequence of popular vote vs. EC for POTUS votes.

I've already explained why, I suppose you just don't buy my argument, which is, of course, fine.

Quote:And I'd still say the say of the people should count more in a federal POTUS election. Congress, OK that's different, I get that. Representatives from each state get voted for in the states, then get together in Washington and negotiate stuff. And smaller states are overrepresented, but I'm not suggesting changing that. But POTUS, as I see it, should be for all Americans and so every American vote should count equally in my understanding of a fair nationwide election (always putting aside how some Americans have no vote at all, which is still absurd). I get the points against it somehow, I'm just not convinced.

Again, fair enough.  I'm much more on the side of Benjamin Franklin on this kind of issue.  His quote, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner", is a salient one in this debate.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-04-2019, 08:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I disagree. I've provided quantified evidence to show the arguments of "only a few population centers will be focused on" and "if we abandon the EC, that will cause many states to be ignored" hold no water. I appreciate your opinions, but until you have something to back it up with, I do not see how they can even begin to be considered as legitimate.

I do have something to back it up, a logical argument for the states maintaining supremacy in the election of who leads them.  You disagree with this argument, no problem, but I don't think you can logically label my position as illegitimate.

Quote:Only 2 of the 10 smallest states were visited in 2016. New Hampshire is a swing states and got 21 visits. Maine awarded proportionally and got 3 visits... so as it stands, small states are ignored. Using the fact that Maine is actually visited because there's a chance to win PART of the population and votes, logic would suggest that moving towards either 1) a system with proportional allocation of electoral votes or 2) a popular vote would cause more than 2 of the 10 smallest states to get more visits.

Would you consider Wisconsin to be a "small state"?  How about Iowa or Nevada?

Quote:Surprising no one, if you look at the next 5 smallest states, only Nebraska (proportional allocation) and New Mexico (potential swing state) had visits...

I suppose we really need to define what we all mean by "small states" to really have this discussion.

[BmorePat87]

(04-04-2019, 02:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do have something to back it up, a logical argument for the states maintaining supremacy in the election of who leads them.  You disagree with this argument, no problem, but I don't think you can logically label my position as illegitimate.

Your logic didn't hold up to evidence, hence the dismissal. If you are going to argue that a shift from the EC to a popular vote would mean small states are ignored, you first have to establish that they are not being ignored currently, otherwise it's not an argument in favor of the EC. I established that small states are almost entirely ignored in the EC. You then have to second establish that a proportional approach would not cause small states to get attention. I provided evidence that shows small states on a proportional system do get attention. 

Quote:Would you consider Wisconsin to be a "small state"?  How about Iowa or Nevada?

I suppose we really need to define what we all mean by "small states" to really have this discussion.

Nevada is the 19th smallest state. Iowa is the 21st smallest. Wisconsin is the 31st smallest state or the 20th largest state. I don't think necessarily only using the rankings is fair. I'd look at the average, which is roughly 6m per state. I don't have time to calculate a standard deviation, so I'll suggest we look at states between 4-8m as our "average". Under that definition, Wisconsin is not a small state but Iowa and Nevada are. 

Using that number, there are 23 total "small states". 14 had no visits (including all of the smallest 5, 8 of the smallest 10, and 11 of the smallest 15). 3 had 1 visit. 1 had 2 visits. 2 had 3 visits. 1 had 17 visits. 2 had 21 visits. So 20 of the smallest 23 states had 11 total visits, or 2.7% of the total campaign events in this country.

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2019, 01:19 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Legit question. Won't that be fixed in 2020 with the next census when the populations are re-calculated and votes evened out?

I admittedly might be mistaken, but I was under the impression that was at least in part why the whole citizenship question on the census was such a big deal. To prevent non-citizens from counting towards EC votes (and House Representatives).

It would not. You would still have the same issue because of the cap in place on the number of Representatives in the House. Also, apportionment is based on the number of persons, not citizens, per the Constitution. Citizenship status has no bearing on apportionment.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-04-2019, 02:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your logic didn't hold up to evidence, hence the dismissal. If you are going to argue that a shift from the EC to a popular vote would mean small states are ignored, you first have to establish that they are not being ignored currently, otherwise it's not an argument in favor of the EC. I established that small states are almost entirely ignored in the EC. You then have to second establish that a proportional approach would not cause small states to get attention. I provided evidence that shows small states on a proportional system do get attention.

 

Except that's not the only part of my argument.  I want the states to have the final say in who leads them, not the aggregate individual voters of the entire nation.  You've focused your entire counterpoint on a small section of my argument for the EC.

Quote:Nevada is the 19th smallest state. Iowa is the 21st smallest. Wisconsin is the 31st smallest state or the 20th largest state. I don't think necessarily only using the rankings is fair. I'd look at the average, which is roughly 6m per state. I don't have time to calculate a standard deviation, so I'll suggest we look at states between 4-8m as our "average". Under that definition, Wisconsin is not a small state but Iowa and Nevada are. 

Using that number, there are 23 total "small states". 14 had no visits (including all of the smallest 5, 8 of the smallest 10, and 11 of the smallest 15). 3 had 1 visit. 1 had 2 visits. 2 had 3 visits. 1 had 17 visits. 2 had 21 visits. So 20 of the smallest 23 states had 11 total visits, or 2.7% of the total campaign events in this country.

Was this because they were "small" or because they were "safe", as in their vote was safely in the hands of one of the candidates?

[fredtoast]

(04-03-2019, 08:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Many, if not most, issues are decided at the state level.  

What role does the President of the United States play in state government?

How many Supreme Court Justices do the States appoint?

How many Cabinet Members do the States select?

[fredtoast]

(04-04-2019, 03:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I want the states to have the final say in who leads them, not the aggregate individual voters of the entire nation.  

Then why not just give each state one vote?

Why should we have EC delegates based on the number of individual voters if the individual voters don't matter?

[BmorePat87]

(04-04-2019, 03:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  

Except that's not the only part of my argument.  I want the states to have the final say in who leads them, not the aggregate individual voters of the entire nation.  You've focused your entire counterpoint on a small section of my argument for the EC.

This exchange began with me giving a counter argument to your assertion that "A pure popular vote POTUS election will see the vast majority of states completely ignored by candidates and if you can safely ignore an area and still et elected what incentive is there for you to address the problems being faces by the peoples of those areas?". You also pushed back against proportional allocation in that post.

If you made an argument based on the need to preserve the federalist system, it wasn't in the post I responded to nor was it in your subsequent responses.

Quote:Was this because they were "small" or because they were "safe", as in their vote was safely in the hands of one of the candidates?

It's because they're not swing states nor are they allocated proportionally. Reason aside, they are absolutely ignored in a winner take all EC system. Considering that you believe that the popular vote is a bad idea because of this identical scenario, at the very least, this should have you rethinking your stance on proportional allocation, given the fact that it has led to small non swing states getting attention while maintaining the idea that the states are picking. 

[BmorePat87]

One aspect not discussed, regardless of the system in place, is anyone ok with the idea that in 3 decades or so (assuming current trends continue) the Executive Branch, half of the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch would likely be selected (indirectly in the case of the Judicial Branch) by 1/3 of the electorate over the wishes of 2/3 of the electorate?

Does anyone see this causing an issue or crisis if it were to occur?

[Dill]

(04-03-2019, 05:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Civil Rights Act passed because it reflected public opinion.  In fact Kennedy did not make any moves on civil rights early in his presidency because the south was solid Democrat.  He was not forced to do anything until the photos from the nightmare in Birmingham made the national news and public opinion made him.

Two quick points here:

1. The Civil Rights Act may not be the best starting point for an argument that laws don't always reflect the will or readiness of the majority. I think a better starting point for such discussion is Truman's integration of the Armed Forces in '49 and B vs B in '54. It was the latter, especially, which led to the "nightmare in Birmingham" which, in turn, expanded sympathy for civil rights. And in '54, the number of whites who thought schools should be integrated was still under 50% nation wide.

2. I don't doubt the NORC poll reflects, more or less, the national disposition towards civil rights in '63. But for all that is not a good guide to whether whites reliably supported civil rights. Recall that the motivation for King's Letter from Birmingham jail was a letter to the local paper by 9 local pastors (one a Rabbi maybe), all of whom backed civil rights for "negroes," but "deplored" demonstrations intended to effect those rights.  They were against segregation but also against the social unrest required to dismantle it. When forced to choose between these options, they chose segregation. That is why King spends a chunk of his Letter identifying, not the rabid segregationist, but the "white moderate" as the major obstacle to lifting segregation.

In any case, the history of civil rights points, if only obliquely, to the problem of majoritarianism. If a minority is genuinely unpopular, so also may be the notion of equal rights for that minority.  Those minority rights can easily be restricted by a majority insisting on the justice of equally weighted votes; no privileges for any groups. "One man/one vote" so long as there are more of us.

[Dill]

(04-03-2019, 09:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would again have to disagree. The reason Madison didn't think the national popular vote would work? Slave states wouldn't be for it because it would take power away from them. That is the biggest reason this compromise solution was pushed forward. The other big reason is because the average voter would not know the presidential candidates, so there would be an indirect election. Those were the intentions, and those aren't an issue anymore.

Just a question. Are you saying that the concerns of the smaller states were simply tabled, compartmentalized or otherwise no longer driving the discussion when the electoral compromise was decided?

[Dill]

(04-04-2019, 05:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: One aspect not discussed, regardless of the system in place, is anyone ok with the idea that in 3 decades or so (assuming current trends continue) the Executive Branch, half of the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch would likely be selected (indirectly in the case of the Judicial Branch) by 1/3 of the electorate over the wishes of 2/3 of the electorate?

Does anyone see this causing an issue or crisis if it were to occur?

Having difficulty visualizing what you are saying here.  Who would be the 1/3?  

[BmorePat87]

(04-05-2019, 03:09 AM)Dill Wrote: Having difficulty visualizing what you are saying here.  Who would be the 1/3?  

The 1/3rd of the population who would be living in 2/3rds of the the states. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2019, 03:01 AM)Dill Wrote: Just a question. Are you saying that the concerns of the smaller states were simply tabled, compartmentalized or otherwise no longer driving the discussion when the electoral compromise was decided?

They were no longer driving the discussion when it came to the electoral compromise. Madison's own stated reason for not pushing harder for a national popular vote was because he did not think the slave states would agree to it as it meant they would lose power in that system because slaves could not vote, but they were counted--albeit fractionally--in the population for apportionment.

The reason for the indirect election as a whole had little to nothing to do with representation of the smaller states. It was about a more informed body making the decision.

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2019, 01:28 AM)Dill Wrote: Two quick points here:

1. The Civil Rights Act may not be the best starting point for an argument that laws don't always reflect the will or readiness of the majority. I think a better starting point for such discussion is Truman's integration of the Armed Forces in '49 and B vs B in '54. It was the latter, especially, which led to the "nightmare in Birmingham" which, in turn, expanded sympathy for civil rights. And in '54, the number of whites who thought schools should be integrated was still under 50% nation wide.

2. I don't doubt the NORC poll reflects, more or less, the national disposition towards civil rights in '63. But for all that is not a good guide to whether whites reliably supported civil rights. Recall that the motivation for King's Letter from Birmingham jail was a letter to the local paper by 9 local pastors (one a Rabbi maybe), all of whom backed civil rights for "negroes," but "deplored" demonstrations intended to effect those rights.  They were against segregation but also against the social unrest required to dismantle it. When forced to choose between these options, they chose segregation. That is why King spends a chunk of his Letter identifying, not the rabid segregationist, but the "white moderate" as the major obstacle to lifting segregation.

In any case, the history of civil rights points, if only obliquely, to the problem of majoritarianism. If a minority is genuinely unpopular, so also may be the notion of equal rights for that minority.  Those minority rights can easily be restricted by a majority insisting on the justice of equally weighted votes; no privileges for any groups. "One man/one vote" so long as there are more of us.

Not disputing any of your points, but I think the entire issue is moot in regards to the point SSF was trying to make.  Hard to complain about the tyranny of the majority when the Civil Rights Act was passed by a Congress I am assuming was at least 95% white.

[Dill]

(04-03-2019, 06:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure focussing on population centers, but I don't see anything wrong with that. Protecting rural areas from areas with more votes seems a bit odd to me, especially since those lesser populated states have a huge overrepresentation in the senate already.

I have a fundamental issue with the government telling me my vote should be weighed less because I live in the city and not in a rural state. That is strange to me. Why should it? Are my wishes and desires less valuable in a democracy just because where I live?

(04-04-2019, 08:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree with you on this. I think where you're having trouble, and the reason debates around the Electoral College stall, is similar to a lot of differences between the US and the rest of the Western world. Democratic theory has evolved since the founding of this country. The Age of Enlightenment was a progressive movement at the time, but those ideas are now over 200 years old. A lot of Europe has continued that progress while the United States, because it is more conservative than most Western nations, has not moved on as significantly.

At the time, there was a split in the Convention over the election of president. Some wanted a national popular vote, some were skeptical of the abilities of the average citizen to make an informed vote and so it should be left to Congress. The Electoral College was a compromise. It wasn't ever about the states making the choice or allowing smaller states to have a say or anything like that. Federalist No. 68, Hamilton's defense of the system, doesn't talk about that. It was because they didn't trust the American people to make a good choice due to lack of information.

Direct election, citizens having their say directly, is a more progressive position in democratic theory. While the rest of the developed world has moved on, the United States in its more conservative way has struggled with this. Democratic theory has left the United States behind.

I quite understand Hollo's problem with "protecting rural areas with more votes." How do we get there from the Enlightenment premise of NATURAL political equality for citizens?  How could increasing the weight of votes cast in Alaska be different, in principle, from the unappealing determination that votes of rich men or Christians or white people should be weighted more?

Yet these are points on which democratic theory, in its body, cannot be unproblematically referenced in favor trashing the EC. Sure, as Bels says, the EC is "200 years old," but the concept of majoritarian rule is far older.

So, regarding the evolution of democratic theory: there have been two waves of new state formation since WW II.  The first began immediately after the war, as democratic governments were imposed on the defeated and occupied Axis powers, and state boundaries in Eastern Europe were redrawn.  You guys know the story of how this progressed, as former French and British colonial states also emerged in areas where Europeans had drawn boundaries to suit their administration, often enclosing ethnic populations destined be perpetual minorities.  A second wave followed the collapse of the Soviet Union with a similar problem. 

In all of the affected regions--Central/Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Central, South, and South-East Asia, the matter of vote weighting was a central question in many states because the one man-one vote principle permanently empowered ethnic/regional majorities over permanently dis-empowered minorities. Genocide, civil war and secession have been a part of this history--even where democracy was the intended goal. Each case is different, and there are many factors at work in state failure (including absence of education and liberal democratic tradition). But my point here is that majoritarian democracy did not prove the solution in every case because it could not deliver security and the "equal justice" democrats proffer as their main talking point, and often-as-not because of the one man-one vote problem.  Other weighted systems have appeared to function for a while (Zimbabwe comes to mind, initially reserving 20% of its parliamentary seats to whites (1% of the pop.) to keep them from fleeing).  So the world has been quite a hothouse of experimentation over the last 8 decades.

Democratic theory in its evolution, then, has often turned to "proportional" solutions as less likely to produce conflict. And with some success (I rather admire the Germans' MMP system, and their ban on referendums). This may be what you are referring to, Bels, when you say "the rest of the developed world has moved on."  But most outside the Western Hemisphere have not moved on to direct presidential elections (Russia, Turkey and Kazakhstan being telling exceptions). Even in the developed world the results are rather uneven (cough Hungary cough cough Poland).  If this is evolution, it is of the ramifying bush type with many failures as well as successes, not necessarily a teleology approaching some democratic higher form. The U.S. electoral system does not look all that outdated in this global context. (We've had one civil war and elections are still race- and region-inflected contests.)  

And there has been quite a bit of experimentation (at the local level) in the U.S. as well--precisely because we are a federal system of states, and it is the states who determine voter eligibility.  As a result, the proportion of voters to population is hardly uniform from state to state, and in any case, exacerbated by other factors like percentage of non-citizens (14% in CA) and percentage of under-18 (Utah has 31% underage, as opposed to 21% for aging Florida).*   Were the Federal government to take over all responsibility for national elections, eliminating the states' role, it could not likely even out these imbalances in representation.  And, as SSF noted, this would indeed be an essential transformation of the U.S. system, and a conflict with the 10th Amendment.  I cannot at the moment visualize what the U.S. would look like were Congress to take over the states' election rights and responsibilities, simply bypassing them as (theoretically) co equal entities, as a state government might might bypass a municipality within its territory.

I have a few more things to say about the Framers' reasons for the electoral college (not an originalist, by the way, and not going in that direction), but I will save them for Monday. Got some more reading to do.

*(2012 numbers from Derek T. Muller "Invisible Federalism and the Electoral College." Arizona State Law Journal. Fall 2012, Vol. 44 Issue 3,  p. 1261)
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=e3d24474-222a-4eb1-8d89-af224abb76d8%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=97057636&db=lgh.