The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[Emily Lake]

I prefer no tyranny.

What I think is that this conversation would not be happening here if Clinton had won in 2016. Which is funny in a way because if memory serves, at least one person in this thread blamed Clinton’s loss not on the EC but on her ‘weak campaign.’

Yeah. I'm about 99% certain that if Clinton had won the EC but lost the popular vote, this thread wouldn't exist and everyone raising holy hell would be crickets.

 

[Emily Lake]

Toni,

When you wonder how the small states with 3x voting power are possibly harming us in larger states with diluted power, don’t you also have to answer ask, “and if they can’t harm us, then how are we harming them?” What do they lose? Because unless we stand to gaining something, they don’t stand to lose anything.

A minority of people with extremist views have gotten their views into the courts. And you think, “They deserve it! Because of their Wyomingness!”

Why. Why should extremists get to stack our courts against the whole nation?

You understand that about half the entire country is Republican, don't you?

 

[lpetrich]

Why do you (or these indexes I suppose) think that a pure parliamentary system is a better system?

A better question to ask might be: why do parliamentary systems score so high? Also, why is proportional representation so good?

I will speculate, but some of these speculations are based on what I've read.

An important virtue in democracy is willingness to be a good loser. It is easier to be a good loser if one does not lose all that much. That also limits winners, since their victories are are only partial. That's an advantage of ruling councils and legislatures over single rulers, because each councilmember is one of many. Proportional representation increases that advantage by avoiding all-or-nothing outcomes for individual seats; a party can get representation even if it would get shut out of representation in single-member-district elections.

There are non-proportional ways to do elections to multiseat bodies, it must be noted.

• Single-member-district elections
• Bloc vote -- vote for some number of candidates up to the number of seats
• General ticket -- vote for complete slates of candidates in single-winner fashion

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I agree with your problem statement. I disagree with your root cause analysis.

It's a function of our lax position toward lobbyists, and our congressional friendliness toward large corporations. And if you think THAT is limited to one party, I've got some fantastic beachfront property in Wikieup to sell you, at a really exceptional price.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Sure if you want to look at it that way. Me, I think Rank Choice or Multiple Choice are most valuable because they end up with a candidate that is the most acceptable to the largest number of people - and that is usually NOT the person that would get the most votes in FPTP.

If we'd had one of those in place, I figure we'd have ended up with Gabbard or Yang or Booty-gig instead of Trump. And we'd all have probably been a lot happier. Of course, I'm speculating mostly because I liked all of those guys, and I can't remember who else was running.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

It didn't used to be that way. Executive Orders have gotten way out of control, and they're being abused by who ever is in the Office now, both R and D.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Supermegacorp multinational conglomerates are definitely messing it all up... closely followed by special interest lobbying groups.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

We have spoken.

Amen to that. These things drive me nuts. I end up editing out the nests just to preserve my own sanity.

 

[Emily Lake]

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."

That Connecticut Compromise *is* the balance between heavily populated and sparsely populated states.

 

[lpetrich]

Project MUSE - The Perils of Presidentialism - Winter 1990 -

Referring to systems of governments with strong presidents.

Some countries, like Sri Lanka, have switched from parliamentary to presidential constitutions. On the other hand, Latin Americans in particular have found themselves greatly impressed by the successful transition from authoritarianism to democracy that occurred in the 1970s in Spain, a transition to which the parliamentary form of government chosen by that country greatly contributed.

Nor is the Spanish case the only one in which parliamentarism has given evidence of its worth. Indeed, the vast majority of the stable democracies in the world today are parliamentary regimes, where executive power is generated by legislative majorities and depends on such majorities for survival.

What was true then is still true today. Parliamentary systems are the highest-scoring ones.

By contrast, the only presidential democracy with a long history of constitutional continuity is the United States. The constitutions of Finland and France are hybrids rather than true presidential systems, and in the case of the French Fifth Republic, the jury is still out. Aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government-but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s.

Or more precisely, destroyed by a coup.

Parliamentary regimes, of course, can also be unstable, especially under conditions of bitter ethnic conflict, as recent African history attests. Yet the experiences of India and of some English-speaking countries in the Caribbean show that even in greatly divided societies, periodic parliamentary crises need not turn into full-blown regime crises and that the ousting of a prime minister and cabinet need not spell the end of democracy itself.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

The people in sparsely populated states don't have extra voting power. The people in states where the population is just a hair over a multiple of 500K are the ones with the most power. At present that's Rhode Island. The people in states where the population is a hair under a multiple of 500K are the ones with the least power. At present that's Montana. Right now, the people of Rhode Island have power that is 88% higher than the people of Montana.

The votes of the people are the EC votes of the Representatives, the votes of the states are the EC votes of the Senators.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why do you (or these indexes I suppose) think that a pure parliamentary system is a better system?

A better question to ask might be: why do parliamentary systems score so high? Also, why is proportional representation so good?

I will speculate, but some of these speculations are based on what I've read.

An important virtue in democracy is willingness to be a good loser. It is easier to be a good loser if one does not lose all that much. That also limits winners, since their victories are are only partial. That's an advantage of ruling councils and legislatures over single rulers, because each councilmember is one of many. Proportional representation increases that advantage by avoiding all-or-nothing outcomes for individual seats; a party can get representation even if it would get shut out of representation in single-member-district elections.

There are non-proportional ways to do elections to multiseat bodies, it must be noted.

• Single-member-district elections
• Bloc vote -- vote for some number of candidates up to the number of seats
• General ticket -- vote for complete slates of candidates in single-winner fashion

More to the point: On what underlying assumption are the scores derived? What is the metric being used, and how is it being measured?

I don't think that proportional representation alone is a great idea - but the people who design those indexes clearly do believe so. Proportional representation alone is great, if you're talking about a relatively homogeneous culture, or one that has diversity that is well integrated and evenly mixed by location. It's best when the population involved shares substantially the same foundational beliefs. It's fantastic for.. say... Sweden. It's less fantastic when the population is both heterogenous and highly clustered.

It's also a lot more useful when the fundamental voting structure is pretty much anything other than FPTP. If the structure supports multiple parties that can then represent the clusters of view and the heterogeneity, then proportional representation alone is a pretty decent solution.

 

[ZiprHead]

I prefer no tyranny.

What I think is that this conversation would not be happening here if Clinton had won in 2016. Which is funny in a way because if memory serves, at least one person in this thread blamed Clinton’s loss not on the EC but on her ‘weak campaign.’

Yeah. I'm about 99% certain that if Clinton had won the EC but lost the popular vote, this thread wouldn't exist and everyone raising holy hell would be crickets.

I'm pretty sure the thread would exist but it would be the righties making the complaints.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

The people in sparsely populated states don't have extra voting power. The people in states where the population is just a hair over a multiple of 500K are the ones with the most power. At present that's Rhode Island. The people in states where the population is a hair under a multiple of 500K are the ones with the least power. At present that's Montana. Right now, the people of Rhode Island have power that is 88% higher than the people of Montana.

The votes of the people are the EC votes of the Representatives, the votes of the states are the EC votes of the Senators.

States don't vote. States are nebulous concepts with no inherent intelligence or ability to vote for anything. The senate EC votes are still chosen by the electorate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The point is you're listing a bunch of things that are domain knowledge and calling city dwellers clueless for not knowing them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. Food shelter and clothing are different from say, making movies or manufacturing airplanes. I'm not sure what level "domain knowledge" is but I think everyone should have a basic understanding of what directly keeps them alive. When they don't, I think that's a problem.

But why does it matter if we know how much crap a cow makes? I'm not in the cow business. I'm not in the manure business. I'm not in the ecology business. I'm not a politician looking to regulate any of these industries. Why am I clueless for not knowing it?

 

[Emily Lake]

I prefer no tyranny.

What I think is that this conversation would not be happening here if Clinton had won in 2016. Which is funny in a way because if memory serves, at least one person in this thread blamed Clinton’s loss not on the EC but on her ‘weak campaign.’

Yeah. I'm about 99% certain that if Clinton had won the EC but lost the popular vote, this thread wouldn't exist and everyone raising holy hell would be crickets.

I'm pretty sure the thread would exist but it would be the righties making the complaints.

All what... 3 of them? honestly, how many "righties" does this place even have? Derec and TSwizzle?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Try again.

Yes, they have fewer seats in the house than warranted by their population. However, they are way overrepresented in the senate.

 

[ZiprHead]

I prefer no tyranny.

What I think is that this conversation would not be happening here if Clinton had won in 2016. Which is funny in a way because if memory serves, at least one person in this thread blamed Clinton’s loss not on the EC but on her ‘weak campaign.’

Yeah. I'm about 99% certain that if Clinton had won the EC but lost the popular vote, this thread wouldn't exist and everyone raising holy hell would be crickets.

I'm pretty sure the thread would exist but it would be the righties making the complaints.

All what... 3 of them? honestly, how many "righties" does this place even have? Derec and TSwizzle?

Is there a need for more to make a complaint? What's the cutoff number?

 

[Toni]

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.

Try again.

Yes, they have fewer seats in the house than warranted by their population. However, they are way overrepresented in the senate.

How about you trying…some history. Each state was allocated 2 representatives, regardless of population ON PURPOSE. The founders worked very diligently to put into place checks and balances, between branches of the government but also between state and federal powers and to ensure that states were equal partners