The US Electoral College

[tmtomh]

Are you saying that is contradictory?

The states comprise one nation...obviously. That gives room for a huge country with varied interests to exist under the umbrella of an overall constitution that they all signed up under. That's about as far as we generally want our collective agreement to go.

Each state sends 2 senators (6 year terms) and however many congressmen (2 year terms) their population dictates, and they go do their thing in DC.

To most of us here, it's 50 very different state governments (separate tax rates, speed limits, gun restrictions, etc) with a federal government we hope stays as much out of the way as possible.

I live in Maryland. Overwhelmingly Democratic state. Popular Republican governor. Hard for many to get it.

Yes, I agree. I live in PA but am from MD (Silver Spring area, just outside of DC). It's often difficult for folks from many other countries to grasp the U.S. federal system, and the degree to which the power of the individual states is enshrined in the Constitution. I personally believe it creates tremendous problems, and the one argument for its main benefit - the relative autonomy of states has kept the country from devolving into separatist regions like one sees in, say, Spain - has the rather serious flaw that it didn't prevent the Civil War (and might ultimately not prevent another one in the future, heaven forbid).

 

[A Surfer]

Actually, what you describe as pointless is precisely the entire purpose of ranked choice voting. There is nothing sketchy, anti-Democratic, or pointless about giving people political power to vote based on the policies they want to see, or want to prevent, by allowing them to use their vote to say, "I would like to be governed by Candidate A, but if not enough of my fellow Citizens agree with me, then can we agree on Candidate B, because I think they'd still be a lot better than Candidate C." To the contrary, it's a very good way to find consensus and to enable voters to participate in the kind of compromise and moderating influences that elected officials themselves usually have to engage in if they want to get anything done.

We live in a world where taking the time to form a consensus is viewed as weakness and prone to giving up the competitive advantage to other more decisive nations. I wasn't going to reply again in the thread, but your point was so well articulated that I did want to comment on it. I for one value consensus building and feel that in the long-run it leads to a more cohesive state. If the state isn't meant to be cohesive it seems questionable in terms of what it is meant to achieve and ultimately doomed to breaking apart through division and conflict.

 

[Count Arthur]

I'm about half way through this: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money

It explains a lot. Most Bond villains don't come close to half the characters in this book.

 

[March Audio]

Actually, what you describe as pointless is precisely the entire purpose of ranked choice voting. There is nothing sketchy, anti-democratic, or pointless about giving people political power to vote based on the policies they want to see, or want to prevent, by allowing them to use their vote to say, "I would like to be governed by Candidate A, but if not enough of my fellow Citizens agree with me, then can we agree on Candidate B, because I think they'd still be a lot better than Candidate C." To the contrary, it's a very good way to find consensus and to enable voters to participate in the kind of compromise and moderating influences that elected officials themselves usually have to engage in if they want to get anything done.

But it doesn't work like that. In reality only 2 possibly 3 political parties will yield any power. If I want party A to have the most power I align my preferences to ensure the their main opposition is least likely to get a slice of the representation. Your remaining vote preferences go for no name candidates who will yield no power. So its ultimately no different just voting out right for a single party. Pointless.

 

[BDWoody]

Not going to go about in a circular discussion, I respect your opinion although I do not agree with your position, that doesn't matter, we are both entitled to hold our views. I am pretty confident there is nothing I could say or do to change your mind and I am pretty sure that the reverse is true. I think I'll step away and focus on audio discussions. Thank you for the conversation.

As Moderator, I salute you.

 

[tmtomh]

We live in a world where taking the time to form a consensus is viewed as weakness and prone to giving up the competitive advantage to other more decisive nations. I wasn't going to reply again in the thread, but your point was so well articulated that I did want to comment on it. I for one value consensus building and feel that in the long-run it leads to a more cohesive state. If the state isn't meant to be cohesive it seems questionable in terms of what it is meant to achieve and ultimately doomed to breaking apart through division and conflict.

Thank you - and well-said yourself! I agree entirely. I would only add that the view of consensus as weakness is so powerful precisely because it is an unexamined assumption for so many of us rather than a consciously adopted view. For example, I would by no means assume that @March Audio view consensus-based decision-making as weakness. He might or he might not, I would not presume. But I would argue that the logic of the argument that ranked-choice voting is pointless (or weird, or silly, or undemocratic in some way) relies on the assumption that the strength of democracy = winner take all competition, and that anything more consensus or compromise-based is a dilution or corruption of democracy. That is the flawed, unexamined assumption at the root of the view, IMHO.

 

[tmtomh]

But it doesn't work like that. In reality only 2 possibly 3 political parties will yield any power. If I want party A to have the most power I align my preferences to ensure the their main opposition is least likely to get a slice of the representation. Your remaining vote preferences go for no name candidates who will yield no power. So its ultimately no different just voting out right for a single party. Pointless.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Your scenario is probably the most likely outcome when ranked-choice voting first gets introduced into a political culture that's been winner-take-all, two-party for a long time - but it is not an inevitable or by-definition outcome. If the U.S. had ranked-choice voting in multiple states - or better yet nationally - you'd see a major change in the number of viable parties and the outcomes of many elections. It might take a generation - or two - to become fully visible, but I believe it would happen.

 

[March Audio]

Thank you - and well-said yourself! I agree entirely. I would only add that the view of consensus as weakness is so powerful precisely because it is an unexamined assumption for so many of us rather than a consciously adopted view. For example, I would by no means assume that @March Audio view consensus-based decision-making as weakness. He might or he might not, I would not presume. But I would argue that the logic of the argument that ranked-choice voting is pointless (or weird, or silly, or undemocratic in some way) relies on the assumption that the strength of democracy = winner take all competition, and that anything more consensus or compromise-based is a dilution or corruption of democracy. That is the flawed, unexamined assumption at the root of the view, IMHO.

No its just pointless. It doesnt acheive the objective you think it does.

Is consensus a weakness? Well I suppose that depends if the consensus was contrary to the majority view.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I do think government is over rated.

During the Reagan/Thatcher years they made a big thing about success with the economy but there was a world economic boom going on, so socialist governments looked good on the economy too.

I was working in France at the time but living in England and I laughed about both governments bragging about their economic success, when they had totally different policies.
What differed was what they spent the money on.
We got tax cuts, France got new roads, schools and hospitals.
Some countries have had so many parties in coalition day to day governance goes on fine but anything contentious ends up with at least one member of the coalition in disagreement so nowt changes. I am not sure this is a bad thing.

 

[March Audio]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Your scenario is probably the most likely outcome when ranked-choice voting first gets introduced into a political culture that's been winner-take-all, two-party for a long time - but it is not an inevitable or by-definition outcome. If the U.S. had ranked-choice voting in multiple states - or better yet nationally - you'd see a major change in the number of viable parties and the outcomes of many elections. It might take a generation - or two - to become fully visible, but I believe it would happen.

Mate, the political parties here issue voting advice to assist in achieving precisely thisvwith the preferential voting.

like it or not most voters will align themselves with certain major political doctrines. Of course some people will fall in between and around those fundamental doctrines but they are the minority.

 

[tmtomh]

But it doesn't work like that. In reality only 2 possibly 3 political parties will yield any power. If I want party A to have the most power I align my preferences to ensure the their main opposition is least likely to get a slice of the representation. Your remaining vote preferences go for no name candidates who will yield no power. So its ultimately no different just voting out right for a single party. Pointless.

Thanks for the further explanation. I still cannot entirely agree, however. Your argument appears to be based on the assumption that all voters will cast their first vote for either Powerful Party A or Powerful Party B, and that votes for Lesser Party A and Lesser Party B will always be people's second or third vote. I don't believe that is the case. One of the features of ranked-choice voting is that if you love Lesser Party A but can live with Powerful Party A, and you really hate Powerful Party B, you can cast your first vote for Lesser Party A and your second vote for Powerful Party A.

In a parliamentary system, or in a U.S.-style system with reforms to make it easier for candidates from non-major parties to get on ballots, that allows folks to use their vote to help build the power of additional parties over time with less fear that they will splinter votes for the parties or candidates that generally share their views, thus allowing parties or candidates they are strongly against to win.

 

[tmtomh]

No its just pointless. It doesnt acheive the objective you think it does.

Is consensus a weakness? Well I suppose that depends if the consensus was contrary to the majority view.

I think we are operating with different definitions of what a consensus is.

 

[March Audio]

Thanks for the further explanation. I still cannot entirely agree, however. Your argument appears to be based on the assumption that all voters will cast their first vote for either Powerful Party A or Powerful Party B, and that votes for Lesser Party A and Lesser Party B will always be people's second or third vote. I don't believe that is the case. One of the features of ranked-choice voting is that if you love Lesser Party A but can live with Powerful Party A, and you really hate Powerful Party B, you can cast your first vote for Lesser Party A and your second vote for Powerful Party A.

In a parliamentary system, or in a U.S.-style system with reforms to make it easier for candidates from non-major parties to get on ballots, that allows folks to use their vote to help build the power of additional parties over time with less fear that they will splinter votes for the parties or candidates that generally share their views, thus allowing parties or candidates they are strongly against to win.

Oh its absolutely the case. People are polarised. If you are conservative you aren't going to see labour as the next best alternative. You see labour as a problem. You don't give them second ranking, you give the bottom ranking.

 

[March Audio]

I think we are operating with different definitions of what a consensus is.

You never get real consensus. You just end up with diluted compromise or the bill dropped.

I think this really boils down to whether you accept or reject majoritianism.

 

[Martin]

The US political system is NOT a two party system. There were 7 presidential candidates on the Florida ballot. It looks like a two party system because the two main parties want it that way. There was a third candidate on the ballot in every state and another on enough ballots to theoretically have collected the 270 electoral college votes required to be elected president. We the people need to demand third party candidates be allowed at the table. How different would the election had been if there were 3, 4, or 7 participants in the nationally televised debates?

Martin

 

[tmtomh]

You never get real consensus. You just end up with diluted compromise or the bill dropped.

I think this really boils down to whether you accept or reject majoritianism.

"Diluted compromise" is just an editorializing synonym for what consensus is. And no, it's not at all about whether you accept or reject majoritarianism. The U.S. system is clearly majoritarian and yet contains many provisions to prevent tyranny of the majority. It's about how you want your majoritarianism to manifest itself, and what checks you want on it.

This is my point - consensus means more than a majority, not less. Plurality is less than a majority, and winner-take-all systems allow pluralities when there are third parties, even tiny ones that are far less powerful than third parties in parliamentary systems.

You are claiming distinctions between winner-take-all and ranked-choice that are not in fact consistent distinctions.

 

[tmtomh]

Oh its absolutely the case. People are polarised. If you are conservative you aren't going to see labour as the next best alternative. You see labour as a problem. You don't give them second ranking, you give the bottom ranking.

"People are polarized" is a historical development. Over the long run of democracies that ebbs and flows. You've got the tail wagging the dog - polarization is (at least in part) shaped by the structure of a democracy.

 

[levimax]

How come the senate has even number of seats & the elected reps? Wouldn’t odd numbers be better to avoid deadlocks?

Vice president has a vote in the senate to break ties.

 

[MRC01]

The electoral college has a coherent theory behind it, and a useful pragmatic effect. The theory is that the people (masses) can't entirely be trusted to support liberty. Nor can the states. Since we can't trust either, yet we can't ignore them, the only alternative is to split the vote between them. The pragmatic effect is that in order to win, parties can't run extremist candidates but must run candidates that appeal toward the center.

For example, without the electoral college, a left-wing party could win the election by capturing a few densely populated left-leaning areas like NYC, SF, LA, Chicago and ignore the rest of the country. Because of the electoral college, they can't ignore the rest of the country but must run a candidate who can win in other areas too.

 

[Vasr]

The electoral college has a coherent theory behind it, and a useful pragmatic effect. The theory is that the people (masses) can't entirely be trusted to support liberty. Nor can the states. Since we can't trust either, yet we can't ignore them, the only alternative is to split the vote between them. The pragmatic effect is that in order to win, parties can't run extremist candidates but must run candidates that appeal toward the center.

While the above is true in theory, it has just moved the problem into the states with all-or-nothing electorate systems. So, a party can run a candidate that is popular in urban areas and win even if those policies are destructive to rural areas and vice versa. There does tend to be a correlation in ideologies between urban and rural areas.

What has happened in the US, as an aggregate, is this division spread over multiple states depending on their urban and rural ratio. The all-or-nothing system for each state magnifies this problem by giving out-sized representation to one or the other (rural or urban) relative to other states. The assumption that this averages out over all states is not necessarily true.

Much more damaging consequence is that the all-or-nothing has enabled a way to game the system with a calculation of narrow wins in just a few states which is wholly out of touch with a fair representation in ANY metric.

Even if Electorate system is to be kept, it would be better to have a proportionate electorate system within each state where its current allocation of electorates can be split between candidates depending on their internal ratio of votes. This would bring it more in line with over-all popular vote count without penalizing any state relative to another. It would force candidates to be appealing to an even more broader spectrum rather than the current extremes divided between states. This is done in only a couple of states now.

There are other improvements that can be made such as rank-ordering candidates rather than a single choice, or allowing losing candidates to allocate their votes to one or more of the top candidates, etc.

No perfect solution, there are pros and cons to be weighed. But the current system is very far from being optimal in deciding representation.