politics Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

[Donward]

Again. I don't understand the whinging over the Electoral College. Those are the rules. They've been that way for - what? - 230 years. It shouldn't be a surprise now about how it works. With how the rules of the United States were set up making it a Constitutional Republic made up of individual semi-sovereign states, it makes perfect sense as a political system.

Maybe if members of a certain political party didn't congregate in a handful of congressional districts that are in a handful of coastal states, they'd be able to capitalize more politically on their slight numerical advantage and the fact that millions of Republicans didn't vote for Trump. Or perhaps they shouldn't have relied entirely on an electoral strategy based entirely motivating enough disaffected minority voters to turn out to vote for an unlikable, rich, white woman who pissed off core constituencies of their party.

[Walter_Sobchak]

I think there is a very good, practical reason for scrapping the EC.  When elections are given to the candidate with fewer votes, it means they come into office with more than half the voters opposed to them, as well as feeling ripped off.  It undermines peoples belief that the system is fair, particularly when there is no positive benefit to the EC.

[Donward]

12 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

I think there is a very good, practical reason for scrapping the EC.  When elections are given to the candidate with fewer votes, it means they come into office with more than half the voters opposed to them, as well as feeling ripped off.  It undermines peoples belief that the system is fair, particularly when there is no positive benefit to the EC.

But we've been over this before.

I am still - for the very short moment - a voter in WA-08 which makes up the Eastside of King County (and other areas) outside of Seattle. My Republican Congressman has historically received between 51 and 58 percent of the vote.

WA-07 which makes up Seattle (and a few other areas) in that same time span has voted for Democrats (and now a Socialist) which have accrued something like 80 or 85 percent of the vote in that same size district directly adjoining mine. 

Yet in the system we live under, my vote means more for my Congressman than that of my neighbors who live 20 miles to the west of me in Seattle due to the accidents of geography and with how 5 people appointed by the state legislature decided to draw up Congressional districts in Washington state.

But that's the way a system which relies on Representatives to works.

If I was a looking to maximize the political advantage of my party, I'd call for a system where the Electoral College was modified to have each electoral vote tallied at the Congressional District level with the two remaining electoral votes apportioned to who wins each state. Under THAT type of system, a Republican candidate would be always guaranteed to win the Presidency as opposed to the current system which actually kind of favors Democratic candidates.

[Donward]

Exploring the matter further, consider this.

Bill Clinton in 1992 won the election without even close to having the majority of the popular vote. He got 43 percent in 1992. George H.W. Bush and H. Ross Perot received 37.5 percent and 19 percent respectively. In other words 57 percent of voting Americans voted against Bubba. Furthermore, if we had something like an Instant Runoff type of electoral system, like in some European countries, Bubba would have likely have lost since it has been generally assumed that Perot voters favored Bush 41 more than Clinton.

And yet I seem to remember zero fucks being given about Bubba not even having close to the majority of the popular vote of Americans throughout his Presidency. At least no fucks were given by the media and celebrities and the individuals who make up the political establishment.

 

[Ramlaen]

59 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

I think there is a very good, practical reason for scrapping the EC.  When elections are given to the candidate with fewer votes, it means they come into office with more than half the voters opposed to them, as well as feeling ripped off.  It undermines peoples belief that the system is fair, particularly when there is no positive benefit to the EC.

1) How long has it been since a candidate actually got 50% of eligible voters.

2) The positive benefit is the few high population states do not get to decide everything, and that politicians actually have to pay attention to low population density regions.

3) Neither candidate campaigned for the popular vote. It's irrelevant that Hillary won the popular vote (in California) and lost the EC.

[Priory_of_Sion]

1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:

1) How long has it been since a candidate actually got 50% of the popular vote, let alone 50% of eligible voters.

2) The positive benefit is the few high population states do not get to decide everything, and that politicians actually have to pay attention to low population density regions.

3) Neither candidate campaigned for the popular vote. It's irrelevant that Hillary won the popular vote (in California) and lost the EC.

1) 2012 for the popular vote

2) I think the states are sovereign entities instead of rather arbitrary administrative divisions(at least in modern America) is a disconnect that we aren't going to ever agree on

3) 100% agreed

[Donward]

3 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

1) How long has it been since a candidate actually got 50% of eligible voters.

 

That's a good question on eligible voters. As opposed to actual voters since there is a difference. Roughly speaking, anywhere from 40 to 50 percent of eligible voters don't vote for whatever reason. Also there are plenty of registered voters who don't vote.

In terms of actual voters, Obama won the popular vote in 2008 and 2012. W. Bush won it in 2004. Bush 41 got it in 1988. Reagan got it in 1984 and just barely got it (50.7 percent) in 1980. Ditto Carter (50.1). 

Oh, Nixon got 60 percent of the popular vote in 1972. and LBJ got 61 percent in 1964. So yay for the wisdom of the Popular Vote.

 

 

[Ramlaen]

9 minutes ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

1) 2012 for the popular vote

Yeah I realized that was a derp as soon as I posted it. But Bush Jr., Clinton, Nixon, Kennedy, Truman and Wilson are all presidents in living memory who won an election without 50% of the popular vote.

[Donward]

1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:

Yeah I realized that was a derp as soon as I posted it. But Bush Jr., Clinton, Nixon, Kennedy, Truman and Wilson are all presidents in living memory that won without 50% of the popular vote.

@Meplat Is still irked about that 1912 race.

[Priory_of_Sion]

6 minutes ago, Donward said:

@Meplat Is still irked about that 1912 race.

Teddy would've won

[Walter_Sobchak]

54 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

1) How long has it been since a candidate actually got 50% of eligible voters.

2) The positive benefit is the few high population states do not get to decide everything, and that politicians actually have to pay attention to low population density regions.

3) Neither candidate campaigned for the popular vote. It's irrelevant that Hillary won the popular vote (in California) and lost the EC.

How does the EC ensure that politicians pay attention to low population density areas?  They pay attention to a handful of swing states, most of which are fairly heavily populated.  Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are not low population states. 

[Sturgeon]

3 hours ago, Toxn said:

Because the definition of 'stupid' means, in practice, 'whoever I think is the enemy'.

 

A lot of good political ideas have this day 0/who will implement them problem. Best to let the dumbdumbs vote if that's your only proxy for 'good political decision maker'.

Right! Notice how your answer wasn't "because everyone has a right to vote", it was the normal utilitarian answer of "well then who decides who's smart enough to vote?". The American political process was designed around messy, utilitarian lines. The EC serves an important function within that, which is to make sure that single regions within the country don't gain so much political power that they can bully others.

Which is exactly the function the EC served in this election. By population, the nation voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump except in the Bay Area and in New York, where they voted even more overwhelmingly for Clinton.

[Sturgeon]

5 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

The relationship between moral absolutism and decision making in regards to types of governments. 

No, I don't have anything for you to read, sadly.

[Sturgeon]

1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

I think there is a very good, practical reason for scrapping the EC.  When elections are given to the candidate with fewer votes, it means they come into office with more than half the voters opposed to them, as well as feeling ripped off.  It undermines peoples belief that the system is fair, particularly when there is no positive benefit to the EC.

It cuts both ways, though. Scrap the EC, and you give elections to the Bay Area and to NYC and the larger DC metro area for all time. The people in the Rust Belt and elsewhere just get fucked. Is that fair? How long do you think you could leave that before the people in the Rust Belt got desperate enough to start shooting at cops?

[Ramlaen]

52 minutes ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

I think the states are sovereign entities instead of rather arbitrary administrative divisions(at least in modern America) is a disconnect that we aren't going to ever agree on

That was the another thing, our presidential elections are an amalgamation of over 50 separate elections. 

[Sturgeon]

6 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

How does the EC ensure that politicians pay attention to low population density areas?  They pay attention to a handful of swing states, most of which are fairly heavily populated.  Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are not low population states. 

It doesn't, but it's better than the popular vote would be. The votes are more evenly distributed geographically.

Also, you have colli's killer argument for not getting rid of the EC: If it were based on the popular vote, recounts would literally never, ever end.

[Ramlaen]

10 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

How does the EC ensure that politicians pay attention to low population density areas?  They pay attention to a handful of swing states, most of which are fairly heavily populated.  Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are not low population states. 

Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio would receive much less attention without the EC. And they are low population compared to California, New York, Texas and Florida.

[ShamefurDispray]

27 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

How does the EC ensure that politicians pay attention to low population density areas?  They pay attention to a handful of swing states, most of which are fairly heavily populated.  Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are not low population states. 

Because their policies would have to align with more swing states; all of which have radically different population compositions. Otherwise, you only campaign in cities and alienate a lot of the states which do not get much of a voice due to low population.

In Canada, Western Canada has been traditionally alienated because they have quite a few less people than Ontario/Quebec, meaning that policies made are usually not benefitting Western Canada and sometimes detrimental like the National Energy Program which almost turned Calgary into modern day Detroit in the 80s by redistributing Albertan oil wealth eastward.

Something like the EC is good because it almost always ensures that a candidate must tailor their policy and campaign to a broad range of states rather than the few states that have a lot of people. Direct democracy usually leads to alienation and secession movements.

[Ramlaen]

 

[Toxn]

4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Right! Notice how your answer wasn't "because everyone has a right to vote", it was the normal utilitarian answer of "well then who decides who's smart enough to vote?". The American political process was designed around messy, utilitarian lines. The EC serves an important function within that, which is to make sure that single regions within the country don't gain so much political power that they can bully others.

Which is exactly the function the EC served in this election. By population, the nation voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump except in the Bay Area and in New York, where they voted even more overwhelmingly for Clinton.

I am pretty much a utilitarian. So cue arguments about what the correct measure of utility is.

 

In terms of EC, from the outside it seems pretty dof. Because cities aren't just where your population is at, it's also where your economic activity is at. If you want to use the electoral process to try to guide policy in favour of economic growth, then you should have proportional representation to favour city policies.

 

And if you view elections as a way to placate the populace towards the leadership caste they were going to get anyway, then 'one man, one vote' is the simpler concept to explain.

[Toxn]

4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

It cuts both ways, though. Scrap the EC, and you give elections to the Bay Area and to NYC and the larger DC metro area for all time. The people in the Rust Belt and elsewhere just get fucked. Is that fair? How long do you think you could leave that before the people in the Rust Belt got desperate enough to start shooting at cops?

I find it interesting that you're making a moral argument here. Also: if the rust belt would rebel, then doesn't this beg the question as to why high-population areas currently being screwed under EC aren't?

[Toxn]

4 hours ago, ShamefurDispray said:

Because their policies would have to align with more swing states; all of which have radically different population compositions. Otherwise, you only campaign in cities and alienate a lot of the states which do not get much of a voice due to low population.

In Canada, Western Canada has been traditionally alienated because they have quite a few less people than Ontario/Quebec, meaning that policies made are usually not benefitting Western Canada and sometimes detrimental like the National Energy Program which almost turned Calgary into modern day Detroit in the 80s by redistributing Albertan oil wealth eastward.

Something like the EC is good because it almost always ensures that a candidate must tailor their policy and campaign to a broad range of states rather than the few states that have a lot of people. Direct democracy usually leads to alienation and secession movements.

Yet direct democracy (really proportional representation) plus a parliamentary system is very stable.

[ShamefurDispray]

13 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Yet direct democracy (really proportional representation) plus a parliamentary system is very stable.

Only when the upper house (regional representation) is as powerful as the lower house (proportional representation) to protect regional interests.

The lower house almost always tries curbs the power of the upper house.

[Sturgeon]

21 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I find it interesting that you're making a moral argument here.

I am appealing to Walt's argument about fairness being a utilitarian concern, mate.

22 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Also: if the rust belt would rebel, then doesn't this beg the question as to why high-population areas currently being screwed under EC aren't?

Nope, you can't pin Walt's argument on me. Go tell Walt that. I was addressing Walt's argument within its own context, giving his premises the benefit of the doubt. They are not my premises.

[Toxn]

Fair enough.