The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[bilby]

But unless “conservative identification” is synonymous with “enthusiasm for fascism”

I think it has largely been for a few years now. There are only two kinds of people who could support a Trump led GOP: Enthusiastic fascists, and people who are utterly clueless.

Perhaps I am making too many charitable assumptions about the level of utter cluelessness in America; Maybe all this "conservative identification" is nothing more unpleasant than common or garden cluelessness writ large. Maybe fascism has always depended more on cluelessness than on enthusiasm. But in a democracy, I am underconvinced that that's an excuse.

 

[bilby]

Like I said earlier... I could get behind a popular vote, but ONLY under a different voting system. Not with FPTP. Not the least of which is the ability of a majority with bad ideas to ruin it for everyone.

If you only have one president at a time, then all possible fair voting systems for presidents are effectively FPTP.

Why is that?

Because you have a two party system.

In a two party race, you either have FPTP, or you have a system that allows the less popular candidate to win (eg an electoral college system that gives some voters far more power than others, based on which state they live in).

 

[lpetrich]

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

Lack of imagination. If you are looking to fix this by abolishing the Senate and the EC then you've already given up.

Lack of imagination? How is that supposed to be a justification?

Sorry, did I need a "[/sarcasm]" disclaimer on that?

Yes you did.

I was pointing out that people who argue for a system much like our current one only with equal numbers of citizens per representative are in fact arguing in favor of a system of different Americans having different levels of power, same as defenders of the status quo are. They are merely tinkering around with the details instead of getting to the root of the problem. And they are doing that because of lack of imagination.

Equal representation == unequal representation? That's mathematical nonsense.

Also, how is wanting to abolish the Senate and the EC supposed to be "giving up"?

You already read the answer and quoted it back to me...

That's no substitute for explaining why abolishing the Senate and the EC are giving up on something.

Equalizing the number of voters per representative does jack squat toward equalizing different Americans' different levels of power in the HoR. A voter in a congressional district that splits 51-49 has immeasurably more voting power than a voter in a district that splits 55-45, let alone one that splits 60-40. That power difference outweighs the whole "700K district vs 900K district is unfair" issue pretty much the way an elephant outweighs a mosquito.

Bad argument. Very bad argument.

Bad dog! Very bad dog!

That's not the usual measure of representation. In a district dominated by one party, the members of that party are guaranteed to be represented, so it's a plus for them.

I think that the US House should be elected with proportional representation, rather than with the one-size-fits-all representation of single-member districts.

Then we are fundamentally in agreement. Proportional representation is just a clumsy, low-tech, unnecessarily coarse-grained approximation of a proxy-voting system.

What's proxy voting? Aside from that, at leat we agree on something.

 

[Toni]

just like they were concerned that the government would turn on it's people

No, they weren't.

They were concerned that the British might come back; They were concerned that the slaves might revolt; They were concerned that the Native Americans might want some of the good bits of the country back.

But they weren't concerned that the government would turn on its people. They were the government. They wanted to stay the government, and that meant being less unpopular than the British.

They absolutely were concerned that the government would ‘turn’ on the people and become a tyranny rather than a servant.

One of the founding principals of the US as a nation was that there could be no government without the will and the consent of the people.

Blacks were almost entirely enslaved and were not considered actually people, except to the extent that there was a compromise to count slaves towards a state’s population on a 2/3 basis. Indians were barely considered, except when they needed to be conquered or driven off land. Women did not exist as a far as participation in government.

Not all of the founding fathers agreed about slavery, but it was accepted as a necessary evil in order to form the union.

 

[lpetrich]

It was 3/5 of "other Persons", to use the Constitution's wording. They counted for allocation of House seats, even if they were not allowed to vote. It was a compromise between the northern states' delegations and the southern states' ones.

 

[Bomb#20]

I was pointing out that people who argue for a system much like our current one only with equal numbers of citizens per representative are in fact arguing in favor of a system of different Americans having different levels of power, same as defenders of the status quo are. They are merely tinkering around with the details instead of getting to the root of the problem. And they are doing that because of lack of imagination.

Equal representation == unequal representation? That's mathematical nonsense.

Well then don't say it. I didn't say it. "Equal numbers of citizens per representative" does not mean the same thing as "Equal representation". (Let alone "equal levels of power".) You know this -- you already stipulated that the members of the losing party are not represented. You're the one who said "In a district dominated by one party, the members of that party are guaranteed to be represented, so it's a plus for them."

Also, how is wanting to abolish the Senate and the EC supposed to be "giving up"?

You already read the answer and quoted it back to me...

That's no substitute for explaining why abolishing the Senate and the EC are giving up on something.

I didn't say abolishing the Senate and the EC is giving up; I said "fix this by abolishing the Senate and the EC" is giving up. I included the "fix this by" part because it matters. We could perfectly well abolish the Senate and the EC and also do all the other stuff it would take to equalize voter power. It is the people who assume abolishing the Senate and the EC and thereby equalizing numbers of citizens per representative, is enough to fix the problem, who are giving up. This is because unequal numbers of citizens per representative is a low-order term in the voter power equation. You might as well try to solve global warming by banning wood stoves.

Equalizing the number of voters per representative does jack squat toward equalizing different Americans' different levels of power in the HoR. A voter in a congressional district that splits 51-49 has immeasurably more voting power than a voter in a district that splits 55-45, let alone one that splits 60-40. That power difference outweighs the whole "700K district vs 900K district is unfair" issue pretty much the way an elephant outweighs a mosquito.

Bad argument. Very bad argument.

Bad dog! Very bad dog!

That's not the usual measure of representation.

I.e., people usually think about this problem wrong. Tell me something I don't know.

In a district dominated by one party, the members of that party are guaranteed to be represented, so it's a plus for them.

In a district dominated by one party, the members of that party are guaranteed to be taken for granted by the party that supposedly "represents" them. Their "representative" will take advantage of his or her "safe seat" to trade votes for personal agenda instead of for the local interests of the district's voters, and any voter who doesn't like it will have nowhere to go but an opposition candidate who's guaranteed to lose and who'd be even worse anyway. That's hardly even representation; it sure as hell isn't power. Besides which, you're taking for granted that the members' overall political goals align with "their" parties, as though the division of Americans into Republicans and Democrats were a natural phenomenon rather than the artifact of our system's manufactured duopoly on power that it is. Any sane person finds both parties loathsome and only ever votes for one in the first place because she thinks it's the lesser evil.

In any event, we don't need your theoretical arguments or mine to tell which voters have power; we can tell by empirical observation. Where do the parties spend their campaign money and their candidates' campaigning time trying to influence voters? The parties may be evil but they aren't stupid.

I think that the US House should be elected with proportional representation, rather than with the one-size-fits-all representation of single-member districts.

Then we are fundamentally in agreement. Proportional representation is just a clumsy, low-tech, unnecessarily coarse-grained approximation of a proxy-voting system.

What's proxy voting? Aside from that, at leat we agree on something.

Proxy voting means a voter has the option of voting on issues personally or else giving his "proxy" to any other person, who will then vote on his behalf. We use this in my local road association because you can't actually get a quorum to show up to talk about road maintenance for two hours. So when the secretary checks for quorum she doesn't count just the people who show up, but also all the people who didn't show up but gave their proxies to someone who did. Then when an issue comes to a vote, somebody who's there voting for herself and for two other people by proxy will get her vote weighted as three votes. So some people along the road just give their proxies to somebody they know tends to agree with them about road issues, and then they don't need to show up and vote to know their opinions are being taken into account.

This would have been totally impractical as a way to run a government in 1789; but in the computer age there's no reason it can't be scaled up to a whole country other than inertia and opposition from the politicians who benefit from retaining 18th-century solutions to 18th-century communication difficulties.

 

[bilby]

One of the founding principals of the US as a nation was that there could be no government without the will and the consent of the people.

Indeed. And everyone alive at the time knew that that was a swipe at the idea of being governed from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean by a King who was barely cognisant of the existence of his North American colonies.

The people whose "will and consent" was needed were the Founding Fathers, as the representatives of Americans, and winners of the recent war - A war which was far from over, as subsequent events in 1812 were to show.

They had no concerns whatsoever that the Americans who were in charge of America would ever become tyrants. That's a modern re-interpretation of their words that is now part of the American National Myth. I am not at all surprised that you wholeheartedly believe it. That doesn't make it any more true.

When a newly empowered government is under attack from many sides, and is far from secure in its power, the last thing it worries about is that a future instance of itself might become tyrannical. The big worry was that a future government might capitulate to one of these threats - in this case, to a resumption of English rule.

 

[Toni]

One of the founding principals of the US as a nation was that there could be no government without the will and the consent of the people.

Indeed. And everyone alive at the time knew that that was a swipe at the idea of being governed from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean by a King who was barely cognisant of the existence of his North American colonies.

The people whose "will and consent" was needed were the Founding Fathers, as the representatives of Americans, and winners of the recent war - A war which was far from over, as subsequent events in 1812 were to show.

They had no concerns whatsoever that the Americans who were in charge of America would ever become tyrants. That's a modern re-interpretation of their words that is now part of the American National Myth. I am not at all surprised that you wholeheartedly believe it. That doesn't make it any more true.

When a newly empowered government is under attack from many sides, and is far from secure in its power, the last thing it worries about is that a future instance of itself might become tyrannical. The big worry was that a future government might capitulate to one of these threats - in this case, to a resumption of English rule.

Of course they were concerned about whether any future citizens or groups would become tyrants! Not that this was unanimous. Some wanted a king! Others thought larger and better. Washington himself refused the mantle of King. There are multiple checks and balances written into the constitution that ensure that while the majority ruled, the rights of the minority would not be trodden upon.

 

[TomC]

There are multiple checks and balances written into the constitution that ensure that while the majority ruled, the rights of the minority would not be trodden upon.

The majority didn't rule by any stretch of the imagination. The system was designed to protect the interests of the wealthy elite and it's still doing so.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

"Equal numbers of citizens per representative" does not mean the same thing as "Equal representation".

In the absence of partisan politics, it is.

I said "fix this by abolishing the Senate and the EC" is giving up. I included the "fix this by" part because it matters. We could perfectly well abolish the Senate and the EC and also do all the other stuff it would take to equalize voter power. It is the people who assume abolishing the Senate and the EC and thereby equalizing numbers of citizens per representative, is enough to fix the problem, who are giving up. This is because unequal numbers of citizens per representative is a low-order term in the voter power equation. You might as well try to solve global warming by banning wood stoves.

It's not giving up. It's going part of the way. To go the rest of the way, one should use some non-FPTP means of voting for single-seat positions, and proportional representation for multiseat positions.

In a district dominated by one party, the members of that party are guaranteed to be taken for granted by the party that supposedly "represents" them.

That's a problem with single-member districts and two-party systems. Multimember districts and more than two parties will make lots of competition.

I think that the US House should be elected with proportional representation, rather than with the one-size-fits-all representation of single-member districts.

Then we are fundamentally in agreement. Proportional representation is just a clumsy, low-tech, unnecessarily coarse-grained approximation of a proxy-voting system.

What's proxy voting? Aside from that, at leat we agree on something.

Proxy voting means a voter has the option of voting on issues personally or else giving his "proxy" to any other person, who will then vote on his behalf. We use this in my local road association because you can't actually get a quorum to show up to talk about road maintenance for two hours. ...

Interesting system, but it seems difficult to do on a large scale.

 

[TomC]

Interesting system, but it seems difficult to do on a large scale.

On a large scale it's extremely unfeasible.
But that's exactly how the Electoral College was originally designed.
State legislatures would appoint EC delegates who went and voted. Delegates were proxies.

That's now profoundly obsolete, IMNSHO, but that's still how the Constitution is framed. As a result, Americans can make the POTUS an elected office without changing the Constitution at all. They just have to elect state level officials who support democracy.
Tom

ETA ~It doesn't even require all states to support democracy. Just 270 EC delegates. The other 268 can vote however they wish.~

 

[Bomb#20]

"Equal numbers of citizens per representative" does not mean the same thing as "Equal representation".

In the absence of partisan politics, it is.

Getting rid of partisan politics (say with approval voting or IRV or something) would certainly make representation closer to equal, yes; but it doesn't take you to the finish line. Consider two districts with 600,000 voters each. In district 1 the winner is approved by 400,000 and disapproved by 200,000; district 2's winner is approved by 500,000 and disapproved by 100,000. So there are 500,000 voters who each have 0.0000020 representatives per representee, 400,000 voters who each have 0.0000025 representatives per representee, and 300,000 voters who each have 0.0000000 representatives per representee.

It's not giving up. It's going part of the way.

I guess so, if you take the view that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single micron.

To go the rest of the way, one should use some non-FPTP means of voting for single-seat positions, and proportional representation for multiseat positions.

In a district dominated by one party, the members of that party are guaranteed to be taken for granted by the party that supposedly "represents" them.

That's a problem with single-member districts and two-party systems. Multimember districts and more than two parties will make lots of competition.

Yes, those would be vastly more substantive reforms than just futzing with district sizes.

Proxy voting means a voter has the option of voting on issues personally or else giving his "proxy" to any other person, who will then vote on his behalf. We use this in my local road association because you can't actually get a quorum to show up to talk about road maintenance for two hours. ...

Interesting system, but it seems difficult to do on a large scale.

I don't see why. Anybody who wants to cast other people's proxy votes registers with the government as a potential legislator. She gets issued a unique ID number which she publicizes. To vote, anybody who wants her to be his proxy types the number into a voting machine. The voting machines are all connected to vote-counting central by a network using a cryptographically secure protocol. The central computers figure out how many proxies each potential legislator holds. Anybody with less than, say, 100,000 proxies doesn't get a seat in the legislature, but that doesn't mean her voters are out of luck; it means their proxy holder is told she needs to re-proxy them to somebody else, forming a tree-structure of representation. Computers are great at understanding tree structures. In the actual legislature, everybody with a seat casts the votes of herself and all the voters she directly or indirectly holds the proxies of. The numbers of votes would be so big you'd need a computer to tell whether a bill passes, but computers are cheap.

You wouldn't even need to schedule elections. Anybody could walk into a voting booth any time she likes and change who she gives her proxy to. If you're a policy-junkie and you like paying attention to such things and your representative is about to vote-trade your interests away, you can transfer your proxy to somebody else on the spot. (Not that you'd need to, provided you gave your proxy to some very like-minded person. He may only represent 1,000 voters but he can still represent them very well -- he can pay attention to the progress of bills for you, and transfer his 1,000 votes en masse to a more acceptable legislator when the need arises.)

(One gotcha is that the thousands or millions of low-level proxy holders would need to be told how many proxies they hold only approximately. Giving them exact numbers would compromise the secret ballot.)

 

[TomC]

I guess so, if you take the view that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single micron.

This seems to be where we differ.

In the journey to a better USA, I see making POTUS an elected position a lot further than a micron.

Long way to go, but a good start.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Interesting system, but it seems difficult to do on a large scale.

On a large scale it's extremely unfeasible.
But that's exactly how the Electoral College was originally designed.
State legislatures would appoint EC delegates who went and voted. Delegates were proxies.

No it isn't and no they aren't. If you vote for the losing side in the state legislature then no delegate votes on your behalf in the EC.

Suppose there are three equally populous states. Gore gets 70% in state A and 45% in states B and C; Bush gets respectively 30% and 55%. Result: the way the EC was designed, Bush wins 2-to-1. In a proxy-voting system, Gore wins 160-to-140.

That's now profoundly obsolete, IMNSHO, but that's still how the Constitution is framed. As a result, Americans can make the POTUS an elected office without changing the Constitution at all. They just have to elect state level officials who support democracy.
Tom

ETA ~It doesn't even require all states to support democracy. Just 270 EC delegates. The other 268 can vote however they wish.~

Bingo. The NPV Compact is brilliant.

I guess so, if you take the view that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single micron.

This seems to be where we differ.

In the journey to a better USA, I see making POTUS an elected position a lot further than a micron.

Long way to go, but a good start.
Tom

Yes, sorry, this subthread started with Rhea's and my comments on the Senate. Fixing a POTUS is a simpler problem than fixing a legislature.

 

[Toni]

There are multiple checks and balances written into the constitution that ensure that while the majority ruled, the rights of the minority would not be trodden upon.

The majority didn't rule by any stretch of the imagination. The system was designed to protect the interests of the wealthy elite and it's still doing so.
Tom

How many elections was that true, where the EC and popular vote did not agree?

If you are talking about the original eligible voter: white me, sure. But black people abd Indians were not truly regarded as people capable of reason and women were regarded as being too delicate to worry their pretty little heads about things like voting, or owning property.

 

[Bomb#20]

How many elections was that true, where the EC and popular vote did not agree?

Four. If you want the gory details, Wikipedia knows all.
In addition to those four, John Quincy Adams lost both the popular vote and the EC; he became president by the state-counting vote in the House of Representatives.

 

[Tigers!]

How many elections was that true, where the EC and popular vote did not agree?

Four. If you want the gory details, Wikipedia knows all.
In addition to those four, John Quincy Adams lost both the popular vote and the EC; he became president by the state-counting vote in the House of Representatives.

5 times in 200 years. Normally that would not be considered a terrible common occurrence.

 

[Gospel]

One of the founding principals of the US as a nation was that there could be no government without the will and the consent of the people.

Indeed. And everyone alive at the time knew that that was a swipe at the idea of being governed from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean by a King who was barely cognisant of the existence of his North American colonies.

The people whose "will and consent" was needed were the Founding Fathers, as the representatives of Americans, and winners of the recent war - A war which was far from over, as subsequent events in 1812 were to show.

They had no concerns whatsoever that the Americans who were in charge of America would ever become tyrants. That's a modern re-interpretation of their words that is now part of the American National Myth. I am not at all surprised that you wholeheartedly believe it. That doesn't make it any more true.

When a newly empowered government is under attack from many sides, and is far from secure in its power, the last thing it worries about is that a future instance of itself might become tyrannical. The big worry was that a future government might capitulate to one of these threats - in this case, to a resumption of English rule.

The federalist papers. Herd of them? Particularly Federalist No. 51, written by James Madison in 1788? Just 12 years after America declared independence?

 

[Bomb#20]

The people whose "will and consent" was needed were the Founding Fathers, as the representatives of Americans, and winners of the recent war - A war which was far from over, as subsequent events in 1812 were to show.

They had no concerns whatsoever that the Americans who were in charge of America would ever become tyrants. That's a modern re-interpretation of their words that is now part of the American National Myth. I am not at all surprised that you wholeheartedly believe it. That doesn't make it any more true.

When a newly empowered government is under attack from many sides, and is far from secure in its power, the last thing it worries about is that a future instance of itself might become tyrannical. The big worry was that a future government might capitulate to one of these threats - in this case, to a resumption of English rule.

The federalist papers. Herd of them? Particularly Federalist No. 51, written by James Madison in 1788? Just 12 years after America declared independence?

^^^^ This ^^^^
And see also the Anti-Federalist Papers. "Founding Fathers" includes not only the ruling faction bilby refers to, but also the opposition figures who were able to shove a Bill of Rights down the throats of the unwilling Federalists.

 

[Rhea]

5 times in 200 years. Normally that would not be considered a terrible common occurrence.

Did you mean to say 5 times in 59 elections?

That is indeed far TOO common an occurance.