The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[jamil]

Can you explain the reasoning behind the Electoral College being established in the first place? If so, then you will have a starting point towards understanding.

I actually have a problem with the EC, because it doesn't do enough to protect against tyranny of the majority. It's just that there doesn't seem to be a better system evident that solves all the problems.

Nevertheless, many of the complaints about how it causes politicians to focus personal attention on a few swing states instead of broadening their attention, are blaming the wrong thing. It isn't a problem that the EC caused. The cause is the geologic and demographic breadth of the US electorate. The US is too large and diverse for politicians at the national level to spend adequate time with each faction in each state. If it were popular vote, national politicians would have little reason to visit what are the swing states now.

That became evident in the 2016 election. We've discussed this here before. Hillary could have won in 2016 if she'd have spent more time in the swing states that she ended up losing. It's been reported that she was confident that she'd win the election, but was worried that she'd lose the popular vote. So she campaigned in the dense population centers, and she got a crap ton of votes from those dense population centers. Didn't matter, because they were from the same few states which she was already going to win.

 

[Phase2]

I actually have a problem with the EC, because it doesn't do enough to protect against tyranny of the majority. It's just that there doesn't seem to be a better system evident that solves all the problems.

Hence, the reason for the compromise that Kut refuses to acknowledge. Saying "that's not fair" is a child's argument when there is a legitimate dispute between parties. Both sides have a claim on fairness, but both won't be treated fairly under the simplest solution.

 

[jamil]

Hence, the reason for the compromise that Kut refuses to acknowledge. Saying "that's not fair" is a child's argument when there is a legitimate dispute between parties. Both sides have a claim on fairness, but both won't be treated fairly under the simplest solution.

Treating everyone equally isn't usually fair, because rarely is everyone equal. There are factors to consider.

 

[KG1]

If you think about it the EC is also based on a popular vote, on an individual State level. Traditionally the winner of the popular vote in each State wins that States share of electoral votes.

 

[T.Lex]

No, they kinda aren't, at least not so far popular voting is concerned. In making a decision, one person, one vote... there's nothing more fair, nor more equal. Change my mind.

Tyranny of the majority.

To posit an extreme example, the majority could "fairly" undertake to support legislation that is unfair.

 

[ghuns]

...In making a decision, one person, one vote... there's nothing more fair, nor more equal...

Tell that to the sheep...

 

[ATOMonkey]

All of this can be solved by going back to the way things were originally. All of this garbage about popular elections for FEDERAL positions is just idiotic.

We are a collection of STATES. The lines on the map aren't just there to make it look pretty.

 

[Leadeye]

Getting rid of the EC will make it easy for the big money candidates, pay off a handful of big city corrupt machines and the presidency is yours. A few cycles of that and you would never see anything except billionaire presidents again.

Think the presidency is powerful now, wait until it's exclusively sold by big city machine law firms to billionaires.

 

[Phase2]

All of this can be solved by going back to the way things were originally. All of this garbage about popular elections for FEDERAL positions is just idiotic.

We are a [STRIKE]collection[/STRIKE]FEDERATION of STATES. The lines on the map aren't just there to make it look pretty.

Just made it clearer.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The US is the most diverse nation on the planet. It's not fair to the rural cultures in Wyoming that California, just because of its sheer voting population, can assert its urban values. California should get to decide for itself what its values are. Even in California, it's not fair that the dense population centers should get to impose their urban values on the rural counties. For example: water rights. Rich lawns get watered. Farmers vie for every drop.

Ain't nothing fair. But freer is fairer. The founders had it right, that the fairest and freest system will have decentralized seats of power, closest to the people.

I understand the argument, but it doesn't reconcile as to why the power of a single individual is usurped because the of the wish to maintain the collective values of one group. One vote should be weighed as equally as another. That obviously isn't true in the electoral college.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Tyranny of the majority.

To posit an extreme example, the majority could "fairly" undertake to support legislation that is unfair.

Tyranny of the majority is not confined solely to the workings of a direct democracy... In fact, there's an argument to be made that EC actually streamlined the ease at which TOTM could be enacted.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Can you explain the reasoning behind the Electoral College being established in the first place? If so, then you will have a starting point towards understanding.

I understand why the EC exists, I'm just questioning the fairness of it to the individual voter. For instance, being ignorant shouldn't, honestly, be an excuse to weaken someone's vote.

 

[KG1]

All of this can be solved by going back to the way things were originally. All of this garbage about popular elections for FEDERAL positions is just idiotic.

We are a collection of STATES. The lines on the map aren't just there to make it look pretty.

The EC is designed to give each individual State a proportional stake in a Federal election. The way it should be IMO.

 

[nonobaddog]

The US is the most diverse nation on the planet. It's not fair to the rural cultures in Wyoming that California, just because of its sheer voting population, can assert its urban values. California should get to decide for itself what its values are. Even in California, it's not fair that the dense population centers should get to impose their urban values on the rural counties. For example: water rights. Rich lawns get watered. Farmers vie for every drop.

Ain't nothing fair. But freer is fairer. The founders had it right, that the fairest and freest system will have decentralized seats of power, closest to the people.

It is hard to believe this has to be explained *again* in 2019 but obviously there are many today that just don't get it.

 

[BugI02]

No, they kinda aren't, at least not so far popular voting is concerned. In making a decision, one person, one vote... there's nothing more fair, nor more equal. Change my mind.

Why doesn't NATO or the EU submit their policies to referendum, then? Do you think France does not want equal power with Germany (EU), and either country wanting equal say with the US (NATO)? Show me an example where rule by popular vote has lead to tranquility and stability between competing interests

 

[BugI02]

I understand the argument, but it doesn't reconcile as to why the power of a single individual is usurped because the of the wish to maintain the collective values of one group. One vote should be weighed as equally as another. That obviously isn't true in the electoral college.

Then the first thing you should be fighting for are competitive districts in every state. That means moving away from compact districts to ones that include enough exurban voters to closely approach 50/50 Republican/Democrat (ignoring the conundrum of third party voting for the nonce). The voting districts of large urban centers would look like partially eaten pies. LA would be the dollop of whipped cream at the center of wedges extending far out into the hills and valleys. But I predict that you don't really want everyone's vote to count equally, I think you see a pathway to the outcome you want and have convinced yourself that that way lies fairness

 

[nonobaddog]

Mob rule only desceptively appears attractive if you are in the mob. Today's mobs are the large cities.

 

[jamil]

I understand the argument, but it doesn't reconcile as to why the power of a single individual is usurped because the of the wish to maintain the collective values of one group. One vote should be weighed as equally as another. That obviously isn't true in the electoral college.

It's not. The states elect the president. The president your state chooses is indeed by the power of a single individual, with one vote, weighed as equally as another in your state, unless the electors chose someone else. States may, of course, require electors to vote according to the vote of the people in their state. Or, like the fad that's going around now, require that the electors vote according with the proportions of the national popular vote.

Speaking of which, I kinda suspect that the first time a Republican president is elected because California's electors put him/her over the top because that candidate won the popular vote, that **** will be ripped from state law. The. Next. Day.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why doesn't NATO or the EU submit their policies to referendum, then? Do you think France does not want equal power with Germany (EU), and either country wanting equal say with the US (NATO)? Show me an example where rule by popular vote has lead to tranquility and stability between competing interests

Or the UN? Why do the members of the security council wield so much power? I'm not arguing the as to which system is the more beneficial overall. I have already said I disagree with popular elections, but I'm not so naive to not recognize that one person, one vote, is the most fair. If I lived in California, regardless of how many people thought like I did, why must my vote be weakened, respectively, compared to a voter in Montana?

 

[jamil]

Why doesn't NATO or the EU submit their policies to referendum, then? Do you think France does not want equal power with Germany (EU), and either country wanting equal say with the US (NATO)? Show me an example where rule by popular vote has lead to tranquility and stability between competing interests

When you make a "should" argument, it involves a lot of opinion. Nothing wrong with that. But you have to be convincing. I'm not convinced that in a diverse nation like the US that a group in one region of the country should be able to impose its will on another group just because it has a **** ton of people scrunched up elbow to elbow, waddling around in human ****. I mean. I don't want to waddle around in human **** all over the sidewalks. But if they want to waddle around in human ****, that's their gig.