The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[Emily Lake]

Perils of Presidentialism - Democracy Paradox

In 1990 Juan Linz published an influential article titled “The Perils of Presidentialism.” It’s a highly influential essay among those who debate the merits of different forms of democracy. Linz argued the separation between the legislature and executive made governance problematic. Gridlock between the executive and the legislature leads presidents to seek extraconstitutional solutions for governance. Over time the constitutional system breaks down threatening democratic governance.

Then noting that a president can try to keep himself in office: an autogolpe or self-coup. Like Alberto Fujimori of Peru in 1992 or Indira Gandhi of India in 1975 or Donald Trump of the US in 2021.

I'm posting all that to indicate that the US is very unusual in having a relatively strong democracy with a President independent of the legislature who runs all of the executive branch. It's a way of asking "Why do we need a President?"

Hypothetically... the executive is supposed to serve as a counter to the legislative. The legislative branch is in a position to create laws to favor themselves as politicians, and to favor their power. THe executive is supposed to balance that. It's also supposed to provide efficiency in wartime, when a decision is needed faster than can be made by committee.

Of course, that's all hypothetical. None of it works quite as well as it ought to. Executive Orders have given the president too much effective power that Congress can't reign in. And the lack of term limits for Congress means you get entrenched personalities in the legislative branch.

Judicial is supposed to be independent of politics, and we all see how that has worked out. I don't have any good ideas for that at the moment.

 

[Emily Lake]

I also think voting day should be either moved to Sunday or declared a holiday, but no one listens to me...

I could get behind that... if you could figure out a way to ensure that nobody ever gets hurt and needs to go to a hospital on voting day.

I'm more in favor of a universal vote by mail, or perhaps an electronic vote. Or maybe more than one day of voting.

 

[Emily Lake]

What I don't support is going to a pure popular vote - not with FPTP.

The concerns that the founders had still hold, and there still needs to be some balance. There's still risk of tyranny of the majority, there's still risk of a populist candidate effectively gaining overarching power.

It would be better than what we have now, tyranny of the minority.

You think Biden is in office via tyranny of the minority? Really?

 

[Emily Lake]

Face it: The big states have an outsized influence over who does and does not win POTUS.

So it should be one state one vote, right?

No, it should be a balance between the citizenry and the states. The states as entities have a stake in who leads the executive branch, but so do the people. I don't want a system that favors one over the other, I want something that balances them as well as possible.

Alternatively, eliminate FPTP.

States don't have interests. States have no thoughts at all, let alone interests.

The states absolutely have interests. Don't be glib.

For example, one of the interests that the state of California has is the water that it needs to get from other states in order to not die. Florida has a huge interest in tourism. Nevada has an interest in the state retaining the right to keep gambling legal.

 

[Toni]

Face it: The big states have an outsized influence over who does and does not win POTUS.

So it should be one state one vote, right?

No, it should be a balance between the citizenry and the states. The states as entities have a stake in who leads the executive branch, but so do the people. I don't want a system that favors one over the other, I want something that balances them as well as possible.

Alternatively, eliminate FPTP.

States don't have interests. States have no thoughts at all, let alone interests.

The states absolutely have interests. Don't be glib.

For example, one of the interests that the state of California has is the water that it needs to get from other states in order to not die. Florida has a huge interest in tourism. Nevada has an interest in the state retaining the right to keep gambling legal.

Well…. California DOES have a legitimate interest in ensuring that it has sufficient water to support its population and industries ( in that order). California’s interests do NOT include continuing to wreak havoc on the environment or to endanger the population( human, plant, animal), industry or environment of any other place. Ditto with Nevada.

 

[Toni]

What I don't support is going to a pure popular vote - not with FPTP.

The concerns that the founders had still hold, and there still needs to be some balance. There's still risk of tyranny of the majority, there's still risk of a populist candidate effectively gaining overarching power.

It would be better than what we have now, tyranny of the minority.

What tyranny of the minority? Please keep in mind that TX and FL each had an enormous number of individuals voting for Trump and Trumpanzies. Their outsized influence far outweighs the measly 3 votes of low population states. Not only that but their greater populations allow them to heavily influence spending priorities ( not that it worked out so well for them in the last budget bill…)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I don't support is going to a pure popular vote - not with FPTP.

The concerns that the founders had still hold, and there still needs to be some balance. There's still risk of tyranny of the majority, there's still risk of a populist candidate effectively gaining overarching power.

It would be better than what we have now, tyranny of the minority.

That'd be if Rhode Island and Delaware and Wyoming and Idaho had more power than the big states. They do have more umph per EV per citizen, but it isn't remotely tyrannical advantage.

The tyranny is the gerrymandering.

 

[ZiprHead]

What I don't support is going to a pure popular vote - not with FPTP.

The concerns that the founders had still hold, and there still needs to be some balance. There's still risk of tyranny of the majority, there's still risk of a populist candidate effectively gaining overarching power.

It would be better than what we have now, tyranny of the minority.

You think Biden is in office via tyranny of the minority? Really?

Gerrymandering and the filibuster, the senate majority leader, one person, being able to block bills from getting a vote at all, giving outsize power to the minority party. When supermajorities are required to pass most congressional bills, that is tyranny of the minority.

 

[ZiprHead]

What I don't support is going to a pure popular vote - not with FPTP.

The concerns that the founders had still hold, and there still needs to be some balance. There's still risk of tyranny of the majority, there's still risk of a populist candidate effectively gaining overarching power.

It would be better than what we have now, tyranny of the minority.

That'd be if Rhode Island and Delaware and Wyoming and Idaho had more power than the big states. They do have more umph per EV per citizen, but it isn't remotely tyrannical advantage.

The tyranny is the gerrymandering.

See my post above.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Lol, they're equally represented in the Senate - every state has the exact same number of senators. The senators represent the state as an entity within the Union.

No
No
No



The people are NOT “equally represented in the Senate.”

The States are.
States are not people. Land is not people. Fields are not Americans.

This idea that States have an “identity” that must be “protected” to the detriment of American citizens has not ever been justified beyond needing to maintain slavery.


So tell me again. What is so Delaware-ey about Delaware that needs to be preserved by the Senate?
WELL NOT “AGAIN,” SINCE NO ONE HAS EVER ANSWERED THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
(oops unintentional caps lock. But… it’s kind of a key unanswered question, so I’m leaving it.)

Different Americans have different levels of power in the Senate, and the EC.
What justifies that?


What property, EXACTLY, does a New Hampshirite have that needs to be preserved MORFE than the voting rights of Pennsylvanian?


What EXACTLY is being preseerved?

 

[lostone]

I cannot help but be concerned that lower population states (including MInnesota) will give up what little power and influence they have if we go to popular vote for POTUS elections. Why does this matter? Well, the concerns of large population states such as CA, TX, and NY are often quite different than those of less populous states. One issue that leaps to mind is with regards to water rights. CA would like to get its hands on water from the Great Lakes, rather than curb its own water use, an enormous amount of which is for agricultural crops.

Those running for national office already ignore every state that is not a swing state

 

[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.

Lol, they're equally represented in the Senate - every state has the exact same number of senators. The senators represent the state as an entity within the Union.

We are talking about the electoral college.

 

[Emily Lake]

Face it: The big states have an outsized influence over who does and does not win POTUS.

So it should be one state one vote, right?

No, it should be a balance between the citizenry and the states. The states as entities have a stake in who leads the executive branch, but so do the people. I don't want a system that favors one over the other, I want something that balances them as well as possible.

Alternatively, eliminate FPTP.

States don't have interests. States have no thoughts at all, let alone interests.

The states absolutely have interests. Don't be glib.

For example, one of the interests that the state of California has is the water that it needs to get from other states in order to not die. Florida has a huge interest in tourism. Nevada has an interest in the state retaining the right to keep gambling legal.

Well…. California DOES have a legitimate interest in ensuring that it has sufficient water to support its population and industries ( in that order). California’s interests do NOT include continuing to wreak havoc on the environment or to endanger the population( human, plant, animal), industry or environment of any other place. Ditto with Nevada.

Of course. That's why I listed it as an interest that the state has

 

[Emily Lake]

What I don't support is going to a pure popular vote - not with FPTP.

The concerns that the founders had still hold, and there still needs to be some balance. There's still risk of tyranny of the majority, there's still risk of a populist candidate effectively gaining overarching power.

It would be better than what we have now, tyranny of the minority.

You think Biden is in office via tyranny of the minority? Really?

Gerrymandering and the filibuster, the senate majority leader, one person, being able to block bills from getting a vote at all, giving outsize power to the minority party. When supermajorities are required to pass most congressional bills, that is tyranny of the minority.

Okay... but that doesn't have anything to do with presidential elections. Certainly something worth talking about, it just didn't really connect to this particular thread.

 

[Emily Lake]

The people are NOT “equally represented in the Senate.”

The States are.

That's EXACTLY as it is intended to be.

 

[Elixir]

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.

Lol, they're equally represented in the Senate - every state has the exact same number of senators. The senators represent the state as an entity within the Union.

No
No
No



The people are NOT “equally represented in the Senate.”

The States are.
States are not people. Land is not people. Fields are not Americans.

This idea that States have an “identity” that must be “protected” to the detriment of American citizens has not ever been justified beyond needing to maintain slavery.


So tell me again. What is so Delaware-ey about Delaware that needs to be preserved by the Senate?
WELL NOT “AGAIN,” SINCE NO ONE HAS EVER ANSWERED THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
(oops unintentional caps lock. But… it’s kind of a key unanswered question, so I’m leaving it.)

Different Americans have different levels of power in the Senate, and the EC.
What justifies that?


What property, EXACTLY, does a New Hampshirite have that needs to be preserved MORFE than the voting rights of Pennsylvanian?


What EXACTLY is being preseerved?

If it’s about unique character “identities”, Puerto Rico, DC and even Guam should have statehood.

The people are NOT “equally represented in the Senate.”

The States are.

That's EXACTLY as it is intended to be.

Right. Intended by the landed gentry who designed this slaveowner-friendly system.

 

[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.

Lol, they're equally represented in the Senate - every state has the exact same number of senators. The senators represent the state as an entity within the Union.

No
No
No



The people are NOT “equally represented in the Senate.”

The States are.
States are not people. Land is not people. Fields are not Americans.

This idea that States have an “identity” that must be “protected” to the detriment of American citizens has not ever been justified beyond needing to maintain slavery.


So tell me again. What is so Delaware-ey about Delaware that needs to be preserved by the Senate?
WELL NOT “AGAIN,” SINCE NO ONE HAS EVER ANSWERED THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
(oops unintentional caps lock. But… it’s kind of a key unanswered question, so I’m leaving it.)

Different Americans have different levels of power in the Senate, and the EC.
What justifies that?


What property, EXACTLY, does a New Hampshirite have that needs to be preserved MORFE than the voting rights of Pennsylvanian?


What EXACTLY is being preseerved?

If it’s about unique character “identities”, Puerto Rico, DC and even Guam should have statehood.

The people are NOT “equally represented in the Senate.”

The States are.

That's EXACTLY as it is intended to be.

Right. Intended by the landed gentry who designed this slaveowner-friendly system.

That’s only partly correct. The electoral college was a compromise to get the less populous ( if you count only white people, who were who counted) on board.

I think we often lose sight of the fact of just how enormous a task it was to form the United States. Lots of compromises were made. Some possibly should not have been but they were.

 

[TomC]

I think we often lose sight of the fact of just how enormous a task it was to form the United States.

Personally, I'm not talking about the trials and tribulations of rich white male slavers.

I'm talking about the modern world I live in.
The one where Citizens United is deemed Constitutional, but RoevWade is not. That world.

How about we talk about that? Not what was up a couple of centuries ago.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Right. Intended by the landed gentry who designed this slaveowner-friendly system.

That’s only partly correct. The electoral college was a compromise to get the less populous ( if you count only white people, who were who counted) on board.

I think we often lose sight of the fact of just how enormous a task it was to form the United States. Lots of compromises were made. Some possibly should not have been but they were.

Yup, and it is outdated and as useless as the electric hand-dryer in the Death Valley restroom.

We didn’t lose sight of how big a task it was, b ut we don’t need to polish the turd any more.

 

[Elixir]

Yup, and it is outdated and as useless as the electric hand-dryer in the Death Valley restroom.

Its ostensible purpose remains in vogue in the Minds of Americans. But there's still the orwellian problem of some people being more equal than others, and powerful people who would like to keep it that way. I think it has ever been so, but not to this degree.