Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[hollodero]

(10-18-2017, 11:53 PM)Dill Wrote: The goal of checks and balances is not to insure that no majority or minority is ever in power. It is assumed one or the other will be every election. The "balance" to that is that they are "checked" by further elections. As majorities--made of different interest groups -- become too powerful, they generate opposition and internal frictions. People go to the other side. Another, differently composed majority forms. So no permanent majority can permanently control a minority. In theory. The framers were classical liberals, building their conception of market self-regulation (e.g. of supply and demand) into government.

If all the votes are thrown in one big bowl, I don't see how the checks and balances would continue. It is a proposal which seems to erase the state.

I get the first part, albeit thinking that's not an ideal model, but that's argueable for sure. But why would the states be erased if I abandoned the electoral college. If the popular vote would decide presidential elections, no states would be erased, I fail to see that and even fail to see why the principle you describe would be endangered. Now with House or Senate elections, that's something different and I am not proposing counting all votes across state lines there. But with a presidential election, sure, every vote should count equally (at least I think that's a reasonable way to look at every person's right to vote) from whomever living wherever, and using the electoral college does not quite enforce that. Now on a partisan level I might understand why a conservative voter would want to keep the electoral college, and fair enough, but it isn't a necessity to ensure American federalism.

(10-18-2017, 11:53 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not sure what you mean about protecting the political "opinions" of the minority in a discussion about proportional representation.

Oh but it's easy, I don't take a very sophisticated approach here. When a Californian seat takes more than three times as large an electorate as a Wyoming one, Wyoming is overrepresented. That's the whole premise. Now OK, you say they only have one seat, that's hard to reduce, I get that. But there is overrepresentation compared to California. And the opinions that are to a degree protected with overrepresentation is, of course, whatever opinions people in those overrepresented states hold. Up to the point where "they" (meaning the overrepresented citizens in the House) could be in a minority in total supporters and still get their way/their results/their majority of Congressmen or however you want to measure it. That's just a logical conclusion to me. I didn't quite specify what these opinions could be, as it seemed unnecessary to get my point.

What did JustWin say? Cities are far bigger echo chambers... and I think it's not far fetched to spin that thought to an "there needs to be a safeguard against the big numbers of voters in said echo chambers, hence underrepresenting those votes a little is good and necessary". But sure, that was just the way I read it.

I did not advocate an attack on your states rights, your federalism or checks and balances, I understand the senate and why this overrepresentation of smaller states is part of an unity like the USA and all that. I just babble about the equality of individual votes and how I think that's desirable. Then again, Puerto Ricans are US citizens with no vote at all, so maybe the US just isn't a stickler for details there.