Minority rule

[fredtoast]

With the current Supreme Court Justice appointment we will have a court dominated by one party thanks to the nominations of a President who lost the popular election and approval by a majority of the Senate who represent a minority of the population.

Of all the President who were elected after losing the popular vote none lost by as many votes as Trump (almost 3 million) and the current Republican majority in the Senate only represent 42% of the population.

Obviously Republicans see no problem with the current system because it is working so well for them, but other than that I have not seen a single logical argument for why it should not be changed to allow a more democratic representation.

Some say we should not change a system that "has worked for over 200 years", but that makes no sense for a couple of reasons.

-First of all the founding fathers came up with the electoral college for reasons that have nothing to do with modern politics. Back then they assumed that the "common people" would not be smart enough to elect a President, plus since there were no political parties they never imagined that there would only be two people running for President. They assumed that the electoral college votes would never supply a clear majority and therefore the House of Representatives would end up choosing the President.

-Second of all, our system has been changed constantly over the last 200 years. For the first 125 years of our existence Senators were not elected by popular vote. this only changed with a Constitutional amendment in 1917. Second, almost all of the States have no passed laws that give 100% of their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state. Originally the delegates form one state could split their votes.

Some people complain that the smaller states have to be protected. But this makes no sense because the smaller states do not share any common interests. Tiny states like Rhode Island and Delaware vote much more like New York that other small states like Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. Again, this is a major change from when the Constitution was drafted and almost half of the population in the southern states were non-voting slaves.

So in the end the only argument they have is that the vote of people living in rural areas should count more than the vote of people living in big cities because it is working for them right now. But that is not how a democracy is supposed to work. Each individuals vote should count the same.

We have made changes before when our system did not work properly. I say it is time to look at changing it again. Democracy is not supposed to produce rule by the minority.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Your post makes an argument for change but doesn't delineate any of those changes. The logical question would thus be, what changes are you advocating? Somehow I'm thinking they'll pretty much all benefit the left/far left.

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 02:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your post makes an argument for change but doesn't delineate any of those changes. The logical question would thus be, what changes are you advocating? Somehow I'm thinking they'll pretty much all benefit the left/far left.

Could that possibly be because the majority of the country is more progressive than the GOP?

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 02:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your post makes an argument for change but doesn't delineate any of those changes.  The logical question would thus be, what changes are you advocating?  Somehow I'm thinking they'll pretty much all benefit the left/far left.

I would propose changes that benefit representative Democracy.  It is pretty hard to make rules to favor just one side when the majority shifts every few years.

The big one would be to make Congressional approval of appointments based on a vote of the entire congress (House and Senate combined) instead of just the Senate.  Also reapportion the seats in the House.

We could keep the electoral college if we did away with "winner take all" from each state.  My vote for President is meaningless in Tennessee and there are lots of other people in BOTH parties who feel the exact same way in a lot of states.  Voter turnout would be much larger if every vote really counted.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-14-2020, 02:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Could that possibly be because the majority of the country is more progressive than the GOP?

If so it's not by much.  Plus these things tend to fluctuate from generation to generation.  

(10-14-2020, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I would propose changes that benefit representative Democracy.  It is pretty hard to make rules to favor just one side when the majority shifts every few years.

Sure, except when you change the rules to prevent exactly that.

Quote:The big one would be to make Congressional approval of appointments based on a vote of the entire congress (House and Senate combined) instead of just the Senate.

 
Sure, that wouldn't entirely bog down every appointee and slow things down to a crawl.

Quote:Also reapportion the seats in the House.

This position has zero specifics.  Do you want fewer Reps?

Quote:We could keep the electoral college if we did away with "winner take all" from each state.  My vote for President is meaningless in Tennessee and there are lots of other people in BOTH parties who feel the exact same way in a lot of states.  Voter turnout would be much larger if every vote really counted.

They do count, they just don't get you what you want.  Nebraska and Maine both have EC districts that can be won proportionately.  Why don't more states follow suit instead of whining about 2016 and advocating for the elimination of the EC?

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 03:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If so it's not by much.  Plus these things tend to fluctuate from generation to generation.  

Exactly. So it wouldn't really be helping just one side in the long term, just making the government more representative. I don't always agree with Fred on things, but on this point I do. We may just have different views on how to make it happen.

[*bfine32*]

(10-14-2020, 02:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: With the current Supreme Court Justice appointment we will have a court dominated by one party thanks to the nominations of a President who lost the popular election and approval by a majority of the Senate who represent a minority of the population.  

Of all the President who were elected after losing the popular vote none lost by as many votes as Trump (almost 3 million) and the current Republican majority in the Senate only represent 42% of the population.

Obviously Republicans see no problem with the current system because it is working so well for them, but other than that I have not seen a single logical argument for why it should not be changed to allow a more democratic representation.

Some say we should not change a system that "has worked for over 200 years", but that makes no sense for a couple of reasons.  

-First of all the founding fathers came up with the electoral college for reasons that have nothing to do with modern politics.  Back then they assumed that the "common people" would not be smart enough to elect a President, plus since there were no political parties they never imagined that there would only be two people running for President.  They assumed that the electoral college votes would never supply a clear majority and therefore the House of Representatives would end up choosing the President.

-Second of all, our system has been changed constantly over the last 200 years.  For the first 125 years of our existence Senators were not elected by popular vote.  this only changed with a Constitutional amendment in 1917.  Second, almost all of the States have no passed laws that give 100% of their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state.  Originally the delegates form one state could split their votes.

Some people complain that the smaller states have to be protected.  But this makes no sense because the smaller states do not share any common interests.  Tiny states like Rhode Island and Delaware vote much more like New York that other small states like Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota.  Again, this is a major change from when the Constitution was drafted and almost half of the population in the southern states were non-voting slaves.

So in the end the only argument they have is that the vote of people living in rural areas should count more than the vote of people living in big cities because it is working for them right now.  But that is not how a democracy is supposed to work. Each individuals vote should count the same.

We have made changes before when our system did not work properly.  I say it is time to look at changing it again.  Democracy is not supposed to produce rule by the minority.

Has the bold really changed? I don't ask this with a political bias. It's why I always side with "voter responsibility".

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 03:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Has the bold really changed? I don't ask this with a political bias. It's why I always side with "voter responsibility".

Do you mean they don't assume the common people would be able to vote intelligently, or that the common people really can't?

Either way, not really, IMO. The problem is, though, that the EC isn't really electing electors to make the decision, anymore. You voted for the elector, not the candidate's elector back then. So even though voters are still mostly ignorant, the system isn't working as designed.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-14-2020, 02:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Of all the President who were elected after losing the popular vote none lost by as many votes as Trump (almost 3 million) and the current Republican majority in the Senate only represent 42% of the population.

Where are you getting this number? Every result I've seen on Google suggests different numbers but the consensus seems to be that Independents are at about 40%, Democrats mid-30% and Republicans mid-to-high 20%. 
That said, no matter which party is the majority in the Senate, it will represent less than half of the population.
As to solutions, I'm all in favor of doing away with the 2 party system though I don't know how we can do that.

[*bfine32*]

(10-14-2020, 03:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do you mean they don't assume the common people would be able to vote intelligently, or that the common people really can't?

Either way, not really, IMO. The problem is, though, that the EC isn't really electing electors to make the decision, anymore. You voted for the elector, not the candidate's elector back then. So even though voters are still mostly ignorant, the system isn't working as designed.

Educated voters.

The extreme part of me thinks you should have to demonstrate knowledge of what you are doing before you can do it.

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 03:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, except when you change the rules to prevent exactly that.

I don't understand what you mean.  I don't see how any of the rule changes I propose would prevent the majority from shifting just like it has for the last 100 years.

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 03:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They do count, they just don't get you what you want.  

You don't understand my point.

Under a "winner-take-all" system Democrats in Tennessee are not motivated to vote in this Presidential election because we can't win.  But if the margin of victory determined how many electoral votes each candidate wins then every vote would be very important.  Even if it is impossible to win the popular vote in a state all the people on the losing side would have the satisfaction of knowing that their votes actually counted toward the number of electoral votes.

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 03:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nebraska and Maine both have EC districts that can be won proportionately.  Why don't more states follow suit instead of whining about 2016 and advocating for the elimination of the EC?

That is exactly what I said.

(10-14-2020, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We could keep the electoral college if we did away with "winner take all" from each state. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 03:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You don't understand my point.

Under a "winner-take-all" system Democrats in Tennessee are not motivated to vote in this Presidential election because we can't win.  But if the margin of victory determined how many electoral votes each candidate wins then every vote would be very important.  Even if it is impossible to win the popular vote in a state all the people on the losing side would have the satisfaction of knowing that their votes actually counted toward the number of electoral votes.

The fun thing about that is it's a state-by-state decision, but no state would do it. The majority party in each state would not want to give up the power they have.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-14-2020, 03:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You don't understand my point.

Under a "winner-take-all" system Democrats in Tennessee are not motivated to vote in this Presidential election because we can't win.  But if the margin of victory determined how many electoral votes each candidate wins then every vote would be very important.  Even if it is impossible to win the popular vote in a state all the people on the losing side would have the satisfaction of knowing that their votes actually counted toward the number of electoral votes.

I like the idea of a tiered approach (or however it's worded) where the percentage of the electoral votes goes towards each candidate. I know I just worded tha thorribly. Basically, if Trump were to win 50% of the vote in PA then he gets 50% of the electoral votes from PA and Biden gets 50%. I am aware some states do that already, but i don't see why all can't. Would make it more fair, IMO.

[Belsnickel]

(10-14-2020, 03:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Educated voters.

The extreme part of me thinks you should have to demonstrate knowledge of what you are doing before you can do it.

You have no idea how much I have to talk myself down from that idea every year. I have to remind myself that democracy demands they have an opportunity to voice their opinions and they have the opportunity to learn about the issues, but taking advantage of the latter is not a requirement for the former.

[*bfine32*]

(10-14-2020, 03:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The fun thing about that is it's a state-by-state decision, but no state would do it. The majority party in each state would not want to give up the power they have.

It's because we'd no longer be able to have cool Red/Blue States maps. Just a national map with various shades of Purple.

[*bfine32*]

(10-14-2020, 03:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You have no idea how much I have to talk myself down from that idea every year. I have to remind myself that democracy demands they have an opportunity to voice their opinions and they have the opportunity to learn about the issues, but taking advantage of the latter is not a requirement for the former.

Me too. You could almost equate it to being "qualified' to exercise your 2A Right.

Guns can kill people, but so could an ignorant vote.

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2020, 03:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Where are you getting this number? Every result I've seen on Google suggests different numbers but the consensus seems to be that Independents are at about 40%, Democrats mid-30% and Republicans mid-to-high 20%. 
That said, no matter which party is the majority in the Senate, it will represent less than half of the population.

I am not talking about percentage of any party.  I am talking about percentage of the entire population.  Since more Republican states have smaller populations but still have the same number of Senators it allows for states that account for only 42% of the total population to elkect a majority of the Senators.

Independent voter still vote for one of the two major parties.  So they chose one side or the other.

(10-14-2020, 03:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote: As to solutions, I'm all in favor of doing away with the 2 party system though I don't know how we can do that.

Just two simple steps.

1.  Make all elections publicly funded.

2.  Have Representatives run at large in bigger districts and take the top group (2,3,4, whatever) instead of having many small districts with just one winner. 

[Millhouse]

I thought the electoral college was compromised on to balance the Prez election between the big cities and the non-big citiy areas of the country.

Also the founders had to know they were creating a two party system by default of how the Constitution was formed. Practically every election after Washington it was a two party race, with a few rare times a minority party replaced one of the two parties. Maybe a college professor of mine in poliical science was wrong, but he even clearly taught that the two party system is solely because of how the founders framed the constitution.