amadeus
burning out his fuse out here alone
I would guess the overriding concern at the time was to put in place a stable enough union that would neither dissolve itself nor be threatened again by Great Britain.
General Politics Three: But what is left/right?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
- Status
All territories should have electoral representation, like any other federation
Seriously though
The EC would be much less of a problem if the elections weren't winner take all and instead the electors were allocated proportionally to popular vote cast in each state
But maybe this just moves the problem to one where no one wins a majority of EC votes and the horrifying backup system in Congress kicks in.
The EC would be much less of a problem if the elections weren't winner take all and instead the electors were allocated proportionally to popular vote cast in each state
But maybe this just moves the problem to one where no one wins a majority of EC votes and the horrifying backup system in Congress kicks in.
amadeus
burning out his fuse out here alone
Historically, the choosing of electors was entirely left to states: some states did not even have popular vote elections, instead having state legislators cast their votes for electors. I doubt many Americans would want to go back to that in their states. 
That was just a tangent, point being that states can decide to send electors based on a system other than winner-take-all. I think in most states you would probably run into resistance from one party (or both?) so it’s easier to, you know, sleeping dogs.
That was just a tangent, point being that states can decide to send electors based on a system other than winner-take-all. I think in most states you would probably run into resistance from one party (or both?) so it’s easier to, you know, sleeping dogs.
Me, a genius: let territories just vote too
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
"Was" is doing the heavy lifting here.
Yes, it's our local elections today. My area is doing parish elections, county council elections and voting for a county police commissioner all on the same day. The photo ID requirement is brand new, supposedly to eliminate (the statistically irrelevant) voter fraud and isn't even consistent by age, in what is wildly understood to be an attempt at voter restriction by the Tories.
EnglishEdward
Deity
I have already voted by post.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
You don't have to stand in line for 9 to 11 hours.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,812
Still is, by every metric offered in this conversation other than simple flat tax fairness. Deficiencies in who was considered a full human were not withstanding.
Historically, the choosing of electors was entirely left to states: some states did not even have popular vote elections, instead having state legislators cast their votes for electors. I doubt many Americans would want to go back to that in their states.
That was just a tangent, point being that states can decide to send electors based on a system other than winner-take-all. I think in most states you would probably run into resistance from one party (or both?) so it’s easier to, you know, sleeping dogs.
It would run into a lot of resistance is very red or very blue states, especially larger ones as there are more EVs to lose. It might be easier to convince the parties to do it in purple states at the national level, however it would reduce those states' disproportionate influence in elections so the local parties might object fiercely.
However, Maine and Nebraska already split their EVs so it's not like this is fantasy. They don't do it proportionally but it's still an improvement over winner-take-all.
Interesting thought, but if Texas is at risk of turning blue (as it urbanises) the GOP there might implement something so the Dems don't run away with all 40 EVs.
Tbh I think this has a better chance than the EC being abolished or successfully gamed (eg via NPVIC)
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 11,234
That's exactly right. That's exactly what will happen. I had not thought this through.
"By the hallowed traditions of our fellows in Maine and Nebraska . . ."
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 11,816
Or if that 'compact' gets enough states to simply award their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote.
Either way, it seems like we can't get rid of the EC*, even though the only reason to keep it is so that the GOP can continue to win a general election once in a while, without ever having to amend their policies and platform to better represent the American people. That's perhaps the essence of the authoritarian: They don't bend to our will. To the authoritarian, the people serve the government or nation, not the other way around. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that the EC is innately authoritarian, but it certainly seems to serve the authoritarian's ends atm.
Exactly. If the EC stopped suiting their purposes, they would suddenly declare it to be out-dated or something, and throw it overboard.
* A Constitutional amendment requires 2/3rds of both houses of Congress, or a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3rds of the states. Good luck with that.
Funny... It just so happens that I took a look at this yesterday... thinking that the amount of EC points Texas would lose to Democrats meant that they would never adopt such a system, even if California agreed to do the same... but I did not consider what you and @Tee Kay are discussing... If Texas went blue, the Republicans would have no choice but to implement a system like Maine and Nebraska so that they could at least salvage some EC points.
Lexicus
Deity
This isn't entirely correct and I think kind of misses some of the point of the authoritarianism we're seeing in the US. It's not so much about people serving the government or the nation, it's about who constitutes the nation. The Democrats' answer is "every American"; the GOP has a bunch of different excuses and formulations, but the common thread is that only some of us are real Americans and the rest don't (or shouldn't) count. This feeling that there are too many, for lack of a better term, fake Americans, voting in elections (and taking our jobs, committing crimes, doing protests, all the stuff conservatives don't like) is at the bottom of Republican anxieties about "illegal votes" and it's also key to understanding the authoritarianism. Because Trump represents the "real Americans", Trump must be empowered to govern essentially as an autocrat. Elections are irrelevant to the will of the people because their outcome is tainted by fake Americans participating in them. The other branches of government are only legitimate insofar as they rubberstamp Trump's (and thus, the Real Americans') agenda.
Akka
Moody old mage.
The EC allows the party which has less votes but a larger distribution to win due to the winner-takes-all present in most states.
It's not authoritarian by nature, but due to this pecularity, it allows a minority to win against a majority, so obviously it's hard to change (because the minority won't want to change the system that gives it more power, and the majority won't just make one-sided changes that will only benefit the other side). Making a country-wide change would require both parties to agree that it would be better regarding democratic fairness, and I don't see this happening.
But the whole discussion about authoritarianism has little to do with this. The "democracy is fine as long as people vote the way I want it" mentality is certainly not restricted to only one side (even if one side certainly lean quite a lot more heavily than the other).
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 11,816
Well, I wasn't trying to give a comprehensive overview of authoritarianism. American authoritarianism also has the religious component, for example. But yes, you're absolutely right. Casting doubt on the election results is part of the playbook, which is why Trump started doing that, even after the election that he won.
Right. Like I said.
That's right, everybody has a certain amount of authoritarianism in their political makeup. Years ago, I recall someone talking about a survey that purported to measure an individual's authoritarian leanings, and basically everyone had some. I never took the survey myself, so I don't know what any of the questions are, but the assertion made some sense to me. For example, if you believe in taxation, or if you think the government should enforce private property rights (rather than just letting/requiring people to defend their property themselves, I guess). Would an anarchist say that people can own as much property as they can defend against other people taking it from you? (I can't pretend to understand anarchism. It seems like it would just evolve into tribalism, and then feudalism. Like, it seems it'd just reset everything to zero and then let individuals' authoritarian streaks run amok.) It feels like we need a certain amount of authority to reign in the bullying, might-makes-right qualities of authoritarianism.
- Status
