7 ms·

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live

by dcposch 10y ago

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too No. Everyone should have an equal say. That's what national popular vote ensures. Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I completely agree with your point about limiting executive power.

skirunman 10y ago
Exactly, this is not "democracy". However, the USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Electing the POTUS via a national popular vote would be rife with more problems than it solves. This article does a good job explaining this topic. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-elector...
- ajross 10y ago
  That's a Heritage piece (republican think tank, and not even one with a particular philosophical lean: Heritage is a straight ticket republican mouthpiece) written in the days before the 2004 election when it looked like Bush was going to lose the popular vote again like he did in 2000. That's, like, the precise opposite of a measured review of the subject. Seriously?
  - curt15 10y ago
    This comment simply attacks the source while doing nothing to actually refute its arguments.
    - ajross 10y ago
      First: Yes, it does. Because it was presented as an "explanation" for problems with popular vote, and it's literally the opposite: it's an advocacy piece, and readers need to know that before clicking on the link. Second: my response wasn't to Heritage, but to skirunman above, who didn't explain any of this stuff either. If you want to ding me for attacking the source, you need to cop to the fact that the whole subthread is an appeal to authority. And that authority is pretty suspect.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      I don't tend to assume advertisements provide an unbiased review of a product. Also, I think pointing out submarine advertising tends to produce more informed consumers.
- FilterSweep 10y ago
  Granted we are in fact a constitutional republic, presidents and congress ranging Bush to Obama would have to stop the "make the world safe for democracy" rhetoric as a "meta-reason"(to make up a word) for going to war. Politicians across the spectrum have either defrauded their people with "democracy" rhetoric, or accepted it as a de facto standard for the modern age. Which one of the two, I'm clearly not possessing of the answers.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  The US is a democracy. It is also a constitutional republic. There's no conflict between the terms. The Heritage Foundation is smart enough to realise the EC favours Republicans and therefore the policies it promotes and so will spin anything to make that seems like a good idea, because the will of the people being enacted would work against their goals. Finally, and more a reply to the parent comment, even a popular vote within a two-party system can be suboptimal in some ways and so be less than an ideal "democracy". Ranked choice voting or similar systems can stop "regulatory capture" of the two main parties from denying the voters a legitimate voice.
  - logmeout 10y ago
    The US is not a democracy it is a democratic republic.
    - antientropic 10y ago
      That doesn't make a lot of sense. How is a "democratic republic" not also a democracy? (Unless you define "democracy" to mean something else than its usual meaning, which is not "direct democracy".)
- charonn0 10y ago
  Whatever else it means, "republic" doesn't mean minority rule.
xamuel 10y ago
Not to endorse either candidate, but you're making a common mistake. If the election were a popular vote, the candidates would campaign for that. They'd focus more on big cities etc. There's no guarantee Clinton would have won the popular vote if that had been the case. Edit: If you're downvoting could you explain why?
- TulliusCicero 10y ago
  You're definitely not wrong that it's not guaranteed she would win. She'd probably have had a better chance though. It would've been harder for Trump to make his pitch in the areas Clinton did well in.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    There is no way to predict what would have happened. National popular vote would completely change both campaign strategy and voter incentives, and the results were already so close that as much as casting ballots on a Sunday instead of a Tuesday might have been enough to change both the popular vote and the electoral college result.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dcposch 10y ago
  I never said that the rule change would "guarantee" a Clinton win. I just said it would be more democratic.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
> Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I suppose it was kind of a rotten trick to not tell the Democrats about the Electoral College beforehand, yeah.

by dcposch 10y ago

skirunman 10y ago

Exactly, this is not "democracy". However, the USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Electing the POTUS via a national popular vote would be rife with more problems than it solves. This article does a good job explaining this topic. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-elector...

ajross 10y ago
That's a Heritage piece (republican think tank, and not even one with a particular philosophical lean: Heritage is a straight ticket republican mouthpiece) written in the days before the 2004 election when it looked like Bush was going to lose the popular vote again like he did in 2000. That's, like, the precise opposite of a measured review of the subject. Seriously?
- curt15 10y ago
  This comment simply attacks the source while doing nothing to actually refute its arguments.
  - ajross 10y ago
    First: Yes, it does. Because it was presented as an "explanation" for problems with popular vote, and it's literally the opposite: it's an advocacy piece, and readers need to know that before clicking on the link. Second: my response wasn't to Heritage, but to skirunman above, who didn't explain any of this stuff either. If you want to ding me for attacking the source, you need to cop to the fact that the whole subthread is an appeal to authority. And that authority is pretty suspect.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    I don't tend to assume advertisements provide an unbiased review of a product. Also, I think pointing out submarine advertising tends to produce more informed consumers.
FilterSweep 10y ago
Granted we are in fact a constitutional republic, presidents and congress ranging Bush to Obama would have to stop the "make the world safe for democracy" rhetoric as a "meta-reason"(to make up a word) for going to war. Politicians across the spectrum have either defrauded their people with "democracy" rhetoric, or accepted it as a de facto standard for the modern age. Which one of the two, I'm clearly not possessing of the answers.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
The US is a democracy. It is also a constitutional republic. There's no conflict between the terms. The Heritage Foundation is smart enough to realise the EC favours Republicans and therefore the policies it promotes and so will spin anything to make that seems like a good idea, because the will of the people being enacted would work against their goals. Finally, and more a reply to the parent comment, even a popular vote within a two-party system can be suboptimal in some ways and so be less than an ideal "democracy". Ranked choice voting or similar systems can stop "regulatory capture" of the two main parties from denying the voters a legitimate voice.
- logmeout 10y ago
  The US is not a democracy it is a democratic republic.
  - antientropic 10y ago
    That doesn't make a lot of sense. How is a "democratic republic" not also a democracy? (Unless you define "democracy" to mean something else than its usual meaning, which is not "direct democracy".)
charonn0 10y ago
Whatever else it means, "republic" doesn't mean minority rule.

xamuel 10y ago

Not to endorse either candidate, but you're making a common mistake. If the election were a popular vote, the candidates would campaign for that. They'd focus more on big cities etc. There's no guarantee Clinton would have won the popular vote if that had been the case. Edit: If you're downvoting could you explain why?

TulliusCicero 10y ago
You're definitely not wrong that it's not guaranteed she would win. She'd probably have had a better chance though. It would've been harder for Trump to make his pitch in the areas Clinton did well in.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  There is no way to predict what would have happened. National popular vote would completely change both campaign strategy and voter incentives, and the results were already so close that as much as casting ballots on a Sunday instead of a Tuesday might have been enough to change both the popular vote and the electoral college result.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dcposch 10y ago
I never said that the rule change would "guarantee" a Clinton win. I just said it would be more democratic.

mzw_mzw 10y ago

> Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I suppose it was kind of a rotten trick to not tell the Democrats about the Electoral College beforehand, yeah.