The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[TomC]

I think k that we DO have the. capacity
to eliminate much more tyranny than we currently tolerate.

The worst tyranny problem that the U.S. has today is the tyranny of the wealthy elite.

That's largely a function of our obsolete system for choosing a president. The fact that the majority of Americans don't really have a voice, because their state's EC delegates are pretty well predetermined, has resulted in an ill-informed and disengaged electorate.

Making the presidency an elected position would go a long way towards fixing that problem. The most feasible method for doing so that I know of is the one proposed by Nationalpopularvote.com

It empowers the people without involvement of the critters in the DC Swamp.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Making the presidency an elected position would go a long way towards fixing that problem. The most feasible method for doing so that I know of is the one proposed by Nationalpopularvote.com

It empowers the people without involvement of the critters in the DC Swamp.
Tom

One nice thing about a system like ranked choice voting Is that in addition to making the presidency an elected position, it also demonstrates to the winner either, “by the way, 2% of your voters want progressive.” or perhaps, “by the way 40% of your voters want progressive,” or even, “by the way 49% of your voters want rural issues highlighted.” And that is very valuable and actionable information.

 

[Toni]

Heh. I married me a city boy —from NYC, as a matter of fact. Now, after 45 years of marriage and more than 30 of those years in a small city surrounded by farmland…. He can correctly identify corn growing in the field,provided it is tall enough, sheep, cows and horses from the car as we drive past. We’re working on soybeans. I was impressed the other day when he recognized a farmer was doing an early cutting of hay. That was a first! We even talked a little about the species of hay and advantages, etc. depending on the animal it’s intended to feed. He’s coming along.

City folks may have heard of farms but they mostly have either very romantic ideas of farm life or are completely clueless as to any of the issues.

I lived on the edge of large cities for 11 years. I watched the news, listened to people talk. They had heard of farms but that’s about as far as it went. I doubt very many are aware that cows have more than one stomach or how much manure one puts out or how long it takes to get a hog or a cow to market, or a crop of anything, for that matter. Although the popularity of farmer’s markets and the eat local movement ts have improved upon that.

Few people know the details of industries other than their own. Farming is an industry.

Point?

My post was a counter to the pinion that urbanites knew anything about farming. Mostly, they don’t. A depresssing number of people never consider where their food comes from, aside from some store.

You seem to regard it as a problem that people don't have domain knowledge in an industry other than their own when the industry in question is farming.

You’re partially correct. I have a problem with people making decisions regarding issues and industries of which they have no understanding. I have a problem with people having no respect for other people’s way of life and are patronizing or contemptuous towards them.

For example: I have little knowledge or understanding of IT, but I respect that industry and the people who work in it.

Christians just happen to consider themselves experts on Christ and expect us to let them decide how the values of Christ will influence America's laws and culture.

Sometimes non expert opinions are needed.

It is certainly useful and necessary to have expertise and perspective from multiple points of view.

Different denominations of Christianity have different views on who Christ was or what his meaning and purpose were/are.

 

[TomC]

One nice thing about a system like ranked choice voting Is that in addition to making the presidency an elected position, it also demonstrates to the winner either, “by the way, 2% of your voters want progressive.” or perhaps, “by the way 40% of your voters want progressive.” And that is very valuable and actionable information.

When I am King of USA, a whole lotta things are gonna change.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Good thing for us the USA is a federal republic, not a monarchy.

 

[Politesse]

Good thing for us the USA is a federal republic, not a monarchy.

I mean, if you take people at their literal word I guess. Is a king defined but what he calls himself, or by what he can do? Our President holds WAY more power than almost any official monarch in the world today, with checks and balances on that power that are anemic at best.

 

[Gospel]

The individuals wielding the power within this system is the problem. The three branches of the US government are designed to serve the American people, while concurrently ensuring that none overstep constitutional boundaries. However, the current landscape presents a scenario where certain factions within the populace are seeking to achieve their objectives by any means necessary. This includes manipulating multiple branches of the government to operate in collusion. Unfortunately, it appears that the government has, thus far, accommodated these tactics.

A problem with the system? Not in my opinion. Any system can be exploited. I think the problem are the exploiters. Always well be, always has been.

 

[Politesse]

The individuals wielding the power within this system is the problem. The three branches of the US government are designed to serve the American people, while concurrently ensuring that none overstep constitutional boundaries. However, the current landscape presents a scenario where certain factions within the populace are seeking to achieve their objectives by any means necessary. This includes manipulating multiple branches of the government to operate in collusion. Unfortunately, it appears that the government has, thus far, accommodated these tactics.

A problem with the system? Not in my opinion. Any system can be exploited. I think the problem are the exploiters. Always well be, always has been.

I admire the system as well. But, it would be hard to make the case that it is currently functioning as intended with regard to the balance of power. Or that ideals and pragmatic intentions were ever truly in consonance.

 

[TomC]

Good thing for us the USA is a federal republic, not a monarchy.

First thing to be up against the wall will be long nested quote posts on IIDB.
Tom

We have spoken.

 

[lpetrich]

The electoral system was designed to balance the power between heavily populated states with respect to lesser populated states.

Any evidence of that?

We have plenty of evidence of what the Founders actually thought, and they weren't exactly unified. They spent a lot of effort on deciding what form Congress would have, and they came up with three different plans for it.

 Virginia Plan - two proportional chambers - large-state delegations liked that one

 New Jersey Plan - one same-per-state chamber - small-state delegations liked that one

 Connecticut Compromise - what the Founders decided on: a proportional chamber and a same-per-state chamber

James Madison and [Alexander] Hamilton were two of the leaders of the proportional representation group. Madison argued that a conspiracy of large states against the small states was unrealistic as the large states were so different from each other. Hamilton argued that the states were artificial entities made up of individuals and accused small state representatives of wanting power, not liberty. For their part, the small state representatives argued that the states were, in fact, of a legally equal status and that proportional representation would be unfair to their states. Gunning Bedford Jr. of Delaware notoriously threatened on behalf of the small states, "the small ones w[ould] find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice". Elbridge Gerry ridiculed the small states' claim of sovereignty, saying "that we never were independent States, were not such now, & never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States & the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty."

 

[lpetrich]

The voices of the rural people in states that have large dense urban centers are frequently completely fucking ignored by their state legislatures. And I mean completely.

WA routinely passes laws that affect the entire fucking state, but which only represent the interests of people who live in Seattle. Illinois is OWNED by what Chicago wants. And between them, LA, SF, and San Diego unquestionably DOMINATE the politics of California, and the people who live outside of those metro sprawls are pretty well treated like they don't matter.

What's the solution? Rural people having votes with extra weight? That's what a lot of Electoral College defenders say in praise of it.

Extra weight would mean that every vote that a rural person has is equivalent to 3 or 10 votes that urban people have.

 

[Emily Lake]

Really? Because if I remember correctly,

How exactly is Montana bullying California or Texas or Florida

Niel Gorsuch

Every Federalist judge appointed by Trump.

The 2017 tax cut

The Iraq war

You’re going after the wrong players here. It isn’t small states : it’s GOP dominated states.

Like Wyoming?
South Dakota?
Montana?

You mean the little, GOP dominated, states with the outsized EC voting power. Not the big states like California, New York, or Illinois, right?
Tom

Why on earth would you say Montana and North Dakota are GOP dominated? They're both solidly purple, and have been for ages. Wyoming has been pretty consistently red, but the other two are most definitely not.

United States presidential elections in Montana - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

United States presidential elections in North Dakota - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Emily Lake]

Many of which are small states giving the GQP more power than they deserve.

What the hell game is this? Are you saying that Montana and North Dakota are giving republicans more power than they deserve in... in those 50% of the years that they vote for a republican? Are they great pals of yours when they vote democratic? This says a lot more about your personal partisanship than about anything else.

 

[ZiprHead]

Many of which are small states giving the GQP more power than they deserve.

What the hell game is this? Are you saying that Montana and North Dakota are giving republicans more power than they deserve in... in those 50% of the years that they vote for a republican? Are they great pals of yours when they vote democratic? This says a lot more about your personal partisanship than about anything else.

What the hell??? Would have been nice if you had included what I was responding to.

 

[Emily Lake]

Because if all of the American people who happen to live in California and New York had their votes counted equally, we would not have needed...

... ANYONE ELSE AT ALL

That's the point here. If we had a pure popular vote, the entire country would be dominated by just a very few locations that are highly populous.

It's like deciding that the entire EU should be completely subservient to the desires of Germany, France, Italy and Spain. The rest of the member countries don't get a say if those four agree.

It's rife with opportunity for abuse. There's value in having the member countries of the EU have a voice as countries, rather than only looking at population. It's the same reason that the US has 2 electoral votes in each state that represent the state as a state. It's why we have the senate, so that each state has an equal voice as a state, no matter how small or large they are.

 

[Emily Lake]

For those of you arguing that Montana has an outsized voice compared to California...

2012 - 2020 Federal Representation by People per House Seat, Senate Seat, and Electors

Tally of how federal representation of each state by people per house seat, senate seat, and electors.

www.thegreenpapers.com

Montana's single Representative is representing ALL of its 900K residents. Each Representative in California only has 700K citizens. Thus, on a per-capita basis, CA has MORE of a voice than MT. Your complaints are effectively trying to disband the Senate.

 

[Emily Lake]

I honestly don’t get this idea that “my vote should have twice (or four times!) as much influence in the presidential election as yours - because I live on a dirt road!”

The RESIDENTS of MT have LESS of a vote than the residents of CA have. MT only has one single Representative vote for all of it's 900K residents. CA has 53 Representative votes for its citizens, each of those votes only counts for 700K people. Thus, each individual person in CA has a voting power that is 41% more powerful than each citizen of MT.

The remaining two electoral votes are the votes of the state as an entity. And in that respect, MT and CA are exactly equal - they each have 2 Senate votes.

That's how the electoral votes are designed. Each state gets one vote for each Representative, and these represent the will of the people, and they are approximately proportional to the population. Each state gets two votes for each Senator, and these represent the will of the states as independent entities.

 

[Emily Lake]

The voices of the rural people in states that have large dense urban centers are frequently completely fucking ignored by their state legislatures. And I mean completely.

Ignored while we have the electoral college in effect. Doesn't seem to work quite like what you are arguing for.

Actually, this is a problem at the state level, with the behavior of state legislatures. It's not a federal problem exactly, and it has nothing to do with the electoral college. The state legislatures of many states end up being driven almost exclusively by the densely populated cities, and the rural areas of the state are pretty well screwed and ignored.

 

[Emily Lake]

Biden has a plan to extend broadband internet to rural areas. Every Republican voted against it. I don't think your rural problems are fixed with the EC.

Sheesh. They're not fixed with the EC. But they're made worse by a pure population vote.

Worse is not better than bad.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think popular vote for the presidency would be a good thing overall. I just prefer the notion of tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority, if some group is inevitably going to be tyrannical.

Are you sure about that? It was tyranny of the majority that kept people as slaves and criminalized homosexuality.