G.O.A.T. American

@OnionSoup Agree on the winner-take-all party system is a very real problem. Game theory dictates it will always devolve into a duopoly (a 2-party system). The Electoral College is another legacy of and precursor to the Confederacy. It drives the disproportionate representation of rural vs urban states.

We have a long way to go, and Condorcet voting would help. Eliminating the Electoral College (binding EC votes to the popular vote would help), and even contemplating a parliamentary system instead of a bicameral republic might be a way out of duopoly and gridlock. What I do know is that these are troubling times and voting in November could not be more important.

@mike808 I’ve often thought a house based on eligible sorti, like the old Greek democracies would be a nice experiment. One house voted one by sorti, it weakens lobbying, parties, and would get a true cross section of America.

@OnionSoup Interesting that the argument against sortition (random selection, like juries for those that skipped civics and Western civilization class), is this (adapted from Wikipedia):

The most common argument against pure sortition (that is, with no prior selection of an eligible group) is that it takes no account of skills or experience that might be needed to effectively discharge the particular offices to be filled. Were such a position to require a specific skill set, sortition could not necessarily guarantee the selection of a person whose skills matched the requirements of being in office unless the group from which the allotment is drawn were itself composed entirely of sufficiently specialized persons. This is why sortition was not used to select military commanders (strategos) in ancient Athens.

By contrast, systems of election or appointment ideally limit this problem by encouraging the matching of skilled individuals to jobs they are suited to. Submitting their qualifications to scrutiny beforehand, either by the electorate or other persons in positions of authority, ensures that those manifestly unqualified to hold a given position can be prevented from being elected or appointed to discharge it.

And yet here we are.

@mike808 and I think in these days it’s impossible to be expert in every field
You need specialists. Whethe elected or selected , I want my representatives listening to the actual experts instead of thinking they know what’s right.

Listen to the economists suggestions. Listen to the health care specialists. The scientists, the career generals, etc.

@OnionSoup I wasnt debunking sortition, and agree, some level of qualification is needed for representation and leadership within representation. I think that is a truth that General Washington realized.

The challenge is preventing whatever selection process is chosen from being corrupted and from the participants from “gaming” the system. e.g. gerrymandering, partisan packing the courts/judiciary, structural racism, abuse of minimal majorities to impose irreversible changes to the system, combined with abuse of minority vetoes to prevent power sharing with other parties/interest, etc. That is a road to fascism, IMO.

@mike808 @OnionSoup I agree with you on the problems with the two-party system. I’m not happy with either candidate running, but I know that voting for someone else is the same as not voting, since for the last two thundered years or so, we’ve never had a president that wasn’t a Democrat of Republican. I don’t want to vote for the lesser of two evils, but I don’t want the greater of two evils to win, either…

However, I think you’re way off with your opinion of the electoral college. It–like the bicameral legislature–ensures that less populous states still get a say in government. Without the electoral college, the citizens of California, Texas, New York, and Florida would basically get to choose the president regardless of what the people in the other 46 states wanted. The president is supposed to represent the people of all 50 states, not of 4 states. Put another way, we’re the United States of America–not the Populous Cities of America.

Of course, it would be unfair if all the less populous states got the same vote as the ones more people were in, and that’s why the more populous ones still get more electors (and representatives, for that matter. Both systems serve the same purpose: To keep the interests of everyone represented as fairly as possible).

You could argue the system doesn’t do as good a job as it could, but it does a lot better job than not having it. Regardless, there’s no way we can get rid of the Electoral College. Because it’s set up by the Constitution, it would take a two-thirds majority in the house and senate to make an amendment. That means that two-thirds of the states would have to agree on it—which they won’t do, because that would give them less power.

TL;DR: Well, akchualy, the electoral college is all right.

@mike808 @OnionSoup @Weboh The better part of wisdom in any management job is to surround yourself with ethical people who know more than you do in areas you are weak and then listen to their suggestions/advice.

Of course this current administration ignores one or both of those things, well actually at times all three things if one considers “ethical” an independent criteria.

@mike808 @Weboh it’s funny until the last presidential election (and again will in this one,) I have ONLY voted for third party candidates. Yeah, I know my vote is not going to the winner usually.

It has only been because I fear for the gradual erosion of democracy that I voted for a major party candidate last time and will again. To stop someone more than really being excited about the person I was voting for.

I frequently vote all across the board, both for both main parties and third parties for individual lower level candidates but until recently, never for President… I traditionally vote minor party for President. (I’ve only been a citizen for 4 presidential elections though, this will be my 5th).

I know when I vote third party that my vote may be lost, but I feel like if enough people vote third party then it might be seen as a valid alternative for people in the future that it won’t be lost.

As for electoral college. I live in a small non swing state, and as such my vote doesn’t count for anything either. It’s a given who is going to win each election because the state only ever votes one way.

Because we’re small, and because we vote solidly in one direction, candidates rarely stop here and never try to court our vote.

I feel like the electoral college system makes my vote for president kinda useless.

If it were by popular count, my vote would count. Because of the electoral college my vote means nothing and candidates don’t care what issues appeal to me.

@mike808 @OnionSoup @Weboh Your vote means something when combined with other people doing the same thing. They are pulling votes from one of the major candidates and if they are all pulling from the same one that increases the odds of that one losing. If it is just a few people then likely not. If more that a few the odds are higher it means something and will affect the election.

@OnionSoup @Weboh

Regardless, there’s no way we can get rid of the Electoral College.

Not get rid of it, but the pact of states with laws requiring EC reps vote aligned with the proportional popular vote goes a long way to neutralizing the current winner takes all.

As for less populous states vs large population states, why should the few voters of the low population states have effectively more representation than those with large voting populations?

Agreed that democracy sucks but all the other forms of government suck more. Everyone wants to eat the sausage, not watch how its made.

@Kidsandliz @OnionSoup @Weboh
That’s why we should have Condorcet voting. i.e. ranked. That system results in the “best overall” candidate (or conversly the “least objectionable” candidate) winning.

@Kidsandliz @OnionSoup @Weboh

I know when I vote third party that my vote may be lost, but I feel like if enough people vote third party then it might be seen as a valid alternative for people in the future that it won’t be lost.

See above on Condorcet voting. It adresses resistance duopoly formation.

@mike808 @OnionSoup @Weboh I can’t remember the details of the research anymore but you can rig ranking (eg who you pair against whom) to have who you want to win.

@Kidsandliz @mike808 @Weboh I’ve always been a fan of the two round run off system.

Round 1everyone running is available to vote for. Since there are two rounds you get to vote for who you want without “wasting” your vote.

Round 2 the top two from round one only are available. The winner of round 2 is ALWAYS elected by a majority because there are only two candidates left.

It means you can vote for whoever is closest to your ideal in the first round without worrying about specifically blocking an undesirable from.winning.

Say in the last election. Trump vs Hillary. Record numbers said they didn’t want either candidate to win, but still they were the two main people that were voted for because people feared “the other” getting elected.

It was an ideal time for a third party candidate to appear. The majority of people in the country could have ended up happier with the result.

No ones vote is really wasted in a two round system. You get to vote for who you really want AND if they don’t make it, you still get a chance to block the “nightmare” candidate in round two.

@mike808 @OnionSoup Yeah, I get where you’re coming from thinking they don’t care about you because they’re pretty much guaranteed the electoral vote anyway.

I don’t think popular vote would solve the problem though, since people in the area would still pretty much vote the same way and politicians still wouldn’t want to bother stopping by your state to campaign to a few people who have already shown they don’t change their minds. Currently, they at least know what issues are important to your neighbors and can build their platform around that. In fact, the reason the people in your state usually vote one way is because that party’s platform is usually tailored toward that specific group.

Popular vote would just make politicians ignore your state entirely, since they can get votes quicker by appealing to all the big urban centers where all the people are. Like, it’s much more efficient to travel to two cities an hour apart that have the same population of two states several hours apart–where they can’t even meet the same percentage of people since they’re so spread out.

I dunno. The Electoral College certainly isn’t without problems, but it has fewer problems than popular vote does.

@mike808 @OnionSoup

Not get rid of it, but the pact of states with laws requiring EC reps vote aligned with the proportional popular vote goes a long way to neutralizing the current winner takes all.

But how would the laws get passed? Populous states could certainly pass laws saying that, but less populous ones wouldn’t (since they don’t want to lose their voice). It’s still the same problem as passing an amendment through Congress.

As for less populous states vs large population states, why should the few voters of the low population states have effectively more representation than those with large voting populations?

They don’t. You still get more electors with a higher population, just like more populous states get more representatives. Urban states still get plenty of say; for example, it takes about ten rural states to get enough electors to override the vote of one urban state: California.

Rural states don’t get more representation in the Electoral College than urban ones do. It’s just another system like the bicameral legislature to make sure the needs of the many and the needs of the few are both met.

@Weboh
It is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

So far 15 states with just shy of 200 electoral college votes. It kicks in when the states passing legislation to join the compact hits the magic 270 needed to elect a President.

No Constitutional Amendment needed. The states alone determine EC rules for their electors.

It prevents shenanigans like winner take all per state disenfranchising half the population in divided races.

Yes, the EC has problems, besides being rooted in a power sharing compromise with the slave states to start with, and this last one has been a real doozy. The NPVIC will address that for the inherent national nature of electing a new President.

@mike808 At this point the NPVIC is truly our only hope.

I despise the argument that the Electoral College gives the ‘small states’ a say because they wouldn’t want the ‘big states’ to make all the decisions. So in turn, we should let the small states with the minority vote make the big decisions over the greater of the population? Fuck no. Plain and simple - decisions should be made based on what the majority prefer. The Electoral College has fucked us twice in recent years, both times resulting in very, very poor leaders. There’s a reason this is the only country in the world that has an Electoral College. Because everyone else knows it doesn’t work in modern times.

@cinoclav @mike808

The Electoral College has fucked us twice in recent years, both times resulting in very, very poor leaders.

Too bad alternative universes aren’t something we can just move to. I’d like to have seen where the other alternatives would have taken us. Has to be far better than where we have landed.

@cinoclav @mike808 @Kidsandliz I’m curious, you argue that the minority is dictating things for the majority with the Electoral College. How would you respond to that same argument being turned on its head? Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by 2,868,686 votes. If I removed just five counties in California from the count, Trump wins the popular vote by 176,000 votes.

Granted that they’re five of the most populous counties, it does rather illustrate the point that you’d be disenfranchising the less populous areas in favor of a raw majority. Would you want to look a potato farmer in Iowa or dairy farmer in Wisconsin in the eye and tell them that their issues don’t matter, that their votes are worthless? There are 3,141 counties in the US, should we just tell those not in a major metro area to pound sand?

@cinoclav @jbartus @Kidsandliz

Would you want to look a potato farmer in Iowa or dairy farmer in Wisconsin in the eye and tell them that their issues don’t matter, that their votes are worthless?

The Southern slave states have done that to black Americans for over a century now. The Republican party, arguably, is still trying to preserve its “white heritage”.

The idea that land ownership matters doesn’t take into account structural racism and instititional disenfranchisement that systemically preserve that inequity.

By farmers in Iowa and Wisconsin, I’m going to assume you mean the white beneficiaries of “manifest destiny” and the Homestead Act that eliminated any say of native interests since European colonization began.

Not all of those counties are equal, because land doesn’t vote. It is a false equivalency. There will always be inequity in geography. Are those farmers in Iowa and Wisconsin not going to use any of the science and technology developed and built in those cities they want to disenfranchise?

As for the minority dictating to the majority, one need only look at Merrick Garland and the damage Mitch McConnell has been doing to two out of the three co-equal branches of our government.

@jbartus @Kidsandliz @mike808

…it does rather illustrate the point that you’d be disenfranchising the less populous areas in favor of a raw majority. Would you want to look a potato farmer in Iowa or dairy farmer in Wisconsin in the eye and tell them that their issues don’t matter, that their votes are worthless? There are 3,141 counties in the US, should we just tell those not in a major metro area to pound sand?

So instead we’re disenfranchising the more populous areas in favor of the raw minority. Would you want to look the scientists, tech personnel, educators, etc. and tell them that their issues don’t matter, that their votes are worthless? Because that’s exactly what has been done these past 3.5 years. The Electoral College has told those IN the major metro areas to pound sand.

@cinoclav Sorry, but that’s just not the same thing at all. No system is perfect, but to portray their votes as being rendered irrelevant is disingenuous. As things stand, the vast majority of states don’t get much attention from candidates, with campaigning for presidential campaigns focused on swing states and states with large numbers of electoral votes. By their very nature, this includes those urban areas that you’re arguing are being disenfranchised, but attention is already being paid to their issues.

The Electoral College, however, keeps states of lower population relevant. The ten most populous states only represent 256 votes, even if you carry every vote for those states, it is impossible to carry only those states and be elected president. This forces candidates to consider the issues that affect residents of those less populous states because they quite literally need support in at least some of those states in order to win the election.

Electoral votes are assigned based on how many Representatives a given state has in Congress, plus their two Senators; this means that an elector from Vermont represents less popular votes than an elector from California, generally thanks to the two Senators being included in the count. While this does mean that a voter in California’s vote is “worth less” on an individual basis, it is by no means worthless.

@mike808 I made no mention of land ownership,. You have something of a point that in saying that some states’ representative systems (note, I am now broadening this to include systems outside the Electoral College because they’re relevant to this conversation) have historically been abused and misused to achieve the relative disenfranchisement of minorities.

Perhaps it’s my privilege speaking, but I’d like to think we’ve great made progress as a society and much of that has either been resolved or is in the process of being resolved, in part thanks to the widespread social discourse we’re having right now. Sure, in an ideal world we wouldn’t need to “make progress” and everything should be done the right and just way from the start, but we’re all adults here and I hope we can all recognize that ideal circumstances are rare at best. Hell, in an ideal world we’d have a direct democracy and have no need for elected representatives at all, but that’s not the world we live in. All we can do is strive to do better.

Wholesale elimination of this representative system will quite literally render the concerns of residents of such states as Vermont irrelevant. When the raw numbers of popular votes are all that matters, why would any candidate bother campaigning outside of major metro areas? This would quite literally establish an 80-20 system where 80% of the states (and their residents) are subject to the whims of 20% of the states.

I’m all for movements to eliminate All-or-Nothing states and other such systems to make the Electoral College more equal, but it’s an important part of the way our government works. I understand that the existing system violates the universal suffrage concept of ‘one man, one vote’, but the idea that such a concept can even exist in a representative democracy is fallacious to begin with.

@cinoclav @jbartus

This would quite literally establish an 80-20 system where 80% of the states (and their residents) are subject to the whims of 20% of the states.

Thats better than the current 49% opressing the other 51%, and destabilizing the democracy in furtherance of totalitarian and fascist governance.

@cinoclav @mike808 so just to be clear, if we accept your argument then your rationale is that 51% being oppressed by 49% is better than 80% being oppressed by 20%?

I think I am done trying to have a meaningful conversation with you. You’ve clearly got your mind made up that any system that doesn’t equate one man to one vote is unacceptable, are unwilling to consider the fact that our government was fundamentally founded recognizing that such a system was both unwieldy and untenable, and are cherry picking sections of posts to reply to based on their convenience to your ability to “support” your position. Have fun trying to burn everything down, I guess.

@cinoclav @jbartus You’ve got it backwards. 49% opressing the 51% is worse than the 80% opressing the 20%.

Did you miss the very clear reference to and example of Merrick Garland 4 posts prior?

I’m not opposed to representative government. I am opposed to land-based franchise that has been the driving support for systemic and structural racism we see today disenfranchising non-white citizens for over two centuries. You can’t retain geography-based franchises and fix the problems that result because you can’t fix the geography easily or where people live. Redistricting helps balance the representation, but you can’t simply “redistrict” state boundaries.

There are problems with allocation of benefit from natural resources (mineral rights, environmental rights) that are also bound to where we draw state boundaries too.

@cinoclav @mike808 @cinoclav @mike808 you are, of course, correct. I did misstate your position. I apologize, I was just so blown away by your maths that I mixed up my words. I knew what you meant, have no fear that I thought you felt oppression of 80% was in some way inferior to that of 51%.

I apologize for not addressing your point about former nominee Garland directly. I don’t suppose bringing up quid pro quos being provided via executive order in order to secure votes to pass a certain president’s landmark healthcare legislation would have been deemed sufficient in your eyes to demonstrate that this kind of cross-branch interference is neither new nor unique to one side? No? I didn’t think it would be, hence why I declined to address that paragraph. We can go back and forth on this, but I really don’t see the point. Both parties suck, are guilty, and are culpable, I don’t care who you choose to champion as the current bogeyman.

You can’t just throw geography and the socioeconomic differences between vastly disparate locations out the window in a country the size of the United States. The issues someone in rural America face are far different from the issues someone in urban America faces. By their very nature, urban centers have a massively higher population per square mile, and while cornfields have ears, they still don’t get to vote. Our representative system empowers less populous areas to have their voices heard rather than drowned out by the urban majority.

While it’s true that redistricting doesn’t change state boundaries, the number of districts a given state gets changes as they grow in population, and the power has already been massively allocated in favor of the coasts and urban centers. That’s the whole point of reapportionment. Going to a popular vote direct democracy model would simply tip the scale completely in favor of those regions at the expense of everyone who isn’t living in a major population center.

@jbartus @mike808 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar

Let’s not even look at the educational levels of those ‘disenfranchised’ states. They’re a direct reflection of the shortcomings in their choices…

@cinoclav @jbartus @mike808 but why should rural America be more powerful than suburban and urban America? Why should that be a rule?

Yes, if urban America really did have more people than urban then yes, they really would have more voting power. As it should be! (I actually don’t think most people are urban though, most people live in medium to small sizes towns).

The electoral college (and two senators per state regardless of size) is an anachronism from when the states were viewed more as actual states (nations, that’s what the word state means afterall), rather than the provinces they have evolved into today. It was to protect individual states identities and to help encourage them “why should I join in with this larger mass and get absorbed”? The balancing act back then was to protect the small states from not wanting to be insignificant to the large states not wanting to be lost in a swarm of small states.

No one really views the individual states as separate countries anymore. We’re one country now, one family. If you go over seas and someone asks what nationality you are, no one says “Nebraskan”. Even slight culture differences are more regional than by state. State boundaries don’t mean anything culturally these days.

Two senators per state and electoral college are pretty anachronistic and were great ideas to compromise the America of the day but as ties have grown and the country has become “one people”, I don’t know that they really have a place anymore. We’re one country now, not a collection of independent states consorting together for mutual protection.

I don’t expect anything to change. Why would states give up their disproportionate power? It’s also worked fairly well as a system for 200 years… I’m not expecting change to ever occur… I personally don’t think there should be an electoral college and I think it’s unfair each state gets 2 senators… But it’s a purely mental exercise, no real emergency change needed, it’s merely not ideal right now.

@OnionSoup You and I see things differently on a very fundamental level. While I disagree wholeheartedly with much of what you’ve said, I don’t think either of us will profit from debating further as we’re just too far apart to see eye to eye and I think we’ve both made our opinions fairly clear. Let’s just agree to disagree (Except with regard to your last paragraph, that one I absolutely agree with! More than just states giving up the power you feel to be disproportionate, why would Senators from any state vote themselves out of a job?) and part as friendly acquaintances. Thank you for taking the time to write your opinions out in a detailed and congenial manner. We may disagree, but there’s no need for us to be ugly while doing so.

@OnionSoup Technically speaking, you named him as a candidate for greatest American. By the strictest definition, as a resident of either the North or South American continents, he is a valid candidate, and therefor there was nothing about your statement for us to pick on.

@OnionSoup I thought it was rather obvious you were joking considering the entire group that wasn’t born here. Though I’d imagine there were plenty who read it and didn’t think twice about it, assuming they all had been. Kudos though, it was quite an entertaining read.