3 ms·

The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy

19 points by smacktoward 8y ago

shazeubaa 8y ago
Are we not a Republic? And the Electoral College was put specifically into place so as to avoid devolving us into a Democracy?
- qstyk 8y ago
  Beyond that, the author has completely missed that the electoral college protects us from things like the five most populous counties in America selecting our President for us and limits the effects of massive voter fraud. cough Illinois cough
  - dllthomas 8y ago
    > the five most populous counties in America selecting our President for us The 5 most populous counties have less than 10% of the US population. Moreover, I have yet to see a good reason it makes sense to prefer tyranny of a minority to tyranny of the majority, where we can't avoid both. > limits the effects of massive voter fraud This is an important point that's not often discussed, IME
- anoncake 8y ago
  The Electoral College was put into place to avoid the USA devolving from a non-monarchy to a country ruled by its people?
  - krapp 8y ago
    > The Electoral College was put into place to avoid the USA devolving from a non-monarchy to a country ruled by its people? The US at the time was a slaveowning nation for which voting rights could only be held by white, male, landowning gentry... so yes.
exegete 8y ago
It's interesting that each State can choose its electors in whatever way they want and have all (with a few exceptions) converged on the winner-take-all popular vote of the State's voters. I think if a State gives the electors to the national popular vote winner but that State's voters chose another candidate, that policy won't last long in that State.
- Recurecur 8y ago
  It seems to me that any effort to subvert the Electoral College will be overturned on constitutional grounds. If folks want the Electoral College abolished, get an amendment passed... ;-)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
DLA 8y ago
So is a massively biased press establishment.
- Isamu 8y ago
  Yeah, but it is an opinion column after all, and labeled as such. Some (many?) "news" outlets have opinion makers speaking off the cuff all the time and don't bother to label it as such.
needlenose 8y ago
A counterargument (with a mathematical basis in a paper I could not find) is described at http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny . The NYT also it in https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/03/weekinreview/why-the-election-is-like-baseball.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/03/weekinreview/why-the-elec...
magduf 8y ago
The democratic republics that score the highest/best in things like quality-of-life, income equality, incarceration rate, crime rate, access to healthcare, life expectancy, etc., all have forms of government where the executive is not elected at all by popular vote, but is instead chosen by the legislature. The only other countries that have a form of government like the US's (a presidential republic) are ones like El Salvador and Turkey.
- newen 8y ago
  Yes, I always find it funny when I see just how easy it is to pass a vote of no confidence in parliamentary systems and have a new executive government set up. While in the US you have to wait four years(!) if you want a new government even if the majority of people do not want the current executive government in power.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    Even in a parliamentary system the majority of people may not want the current government in power if the parliament they elected years before does.
    - magduf 8y ago
      It's still much better than the presidential system, because you don't get deadlocks between the executive and legislative branches that last indefinite amounts of time. The legislature picks the executive (instead of the voters electing him separately and on a different cycle), so the two branches tend to be in agreement. And the voters are able to change the makeup of parliament to some extent at every election. Also, parliamentary countries seem to have elections based much more on party rather than actual people, so they have more parties with representation, instead of devolving to just two parties per Duverger's Law.
      - anoncake 8y ago
        > It's still much better than the presidential system, because you don't get deadlocks between the executive and legislative branches that last indefinite amounts of time. Sure, but that's a different argument. > (instead of the voters electing him separately and on a different cycle) Nothing prevents having both elections on the same cycle. AFAIK France (which is semi-presidential) somewhat recently aligned their cycles to make that disagreements between president and parliament less likely. > Also, parliamentary countries seem to have elections based much more on party rather than actual people, so they have more parties with representation, instead of devolving to just two parties per Duverger's Law. That actually weakens the claim that parliamentary systems are superior, unless presidential systems somehow cause first-past-the-post. I think they may have a common cause though: If the writers of a country's constitution believe that people should vote for parties, they'll probably chose proportional representation and a parliamentary system. If they want people to vote for individuals, a presidential system with FPTP is the obvious choice.
wowlookatme 8y ago
We're a representative democracy, and for a good reason. Otherwise it would be mob rule and the rights of the minority would be destroyed by the majority.
JohnClark1337 8y ago
hmm, nytimes article about how New York, California, and Texas are the only voices that matter

19 points by smacktoward 8y ago

Are we not a Republic? And the Electoral College was put specifically into place so as to avoid devolving us into a Democracy?

qstyk 8y ago
Beyond that, the author has completely missed that the electoral college protects us from things like the five most populous counties in America selecting our President for us and limits the effects of massive voter fraud. cough Illinois cough
- dllthomas 8y ago
  > the five most populous counties in America selecting our President for us The 5 most populous counties have less than 10% of the US population. Moreover, I have yet to see a good reason it makes sense to prefer tyranny of a minority to tyranny of the majority, where we can't avoid both. > limits the effects of massive voter fraud This is an important point that's not often discussed, IME
anoncake 8y ago
The Electoral College was put into place to avoid the USA devolving from a non-monarchy to a country ruled by its people?
- krapp 8y ago
  > The Electoral College was put into place to avoid the USA devolving from a non-monarchy to a country ruled by its people? The US at the time was a slaveowning nation for which voting rights could only be held by white, male, landowning gentry... so yes.

exegete 8y ago

It's interesting that each State can choose its electors in whatever way they want and have all (with a few exceptions) converged on the winner-take-all popular vote of the State's voters. I think if a State gives the electors to the national popular vote winner but that State's voters chose another candidate, that policy won't last long in that State.

Recurecur 8y ago
It seems to me that any effort to subvert the Electoral College will be overturned on constitutional grounds. If folks want the Electoral College abolished, get an amendment passed... ;-)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

DLA 8y ago

So is a massively biased press establishment.

Isamu 8y ago
Yeah, but it is an opinion column after all, and labeled as such. Some (many?) "news" outlets have opinion makers speaking off the cuff all the time and don't bother to label it as such.

needlenose 8y ago

A counterargument (with a mathematical basis in a paper I could not find) is described at http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny . The NYT also it in https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/03/weekinreview/why-the-election-is-like-baseball.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/03/weekinreview/why-the-elec...

magduf 8y ago

The democratic republics that score the highest/best in things like quality-of-life, income equality, incarceration rate, crime rate, access to healthcare, life expectancy, etc., all have forms of government where the executive is not elected at all by popular vote, but is instead chosen by the legislature. The only other countries that have a form of government like the US's (a presidential republic) are ones like El Salvador and Turkey.

newen 8y ago
Yes, I always find it funny when I see just how easy it is to pass a vote of no confidence in parliamentary systems and have a new executive government set up. While in the US you have to wait four years(!) if you want a new government even if the majority of people do not want the current executive government in power.
- anoncake 8y ago
  Even in a parliamentary system the majority of people may not want the current government in power if the parliament they elected years before does.
  - magduf 8y ago
    It's still much better than the presidential system, because you don't get deadlocks between the executive and legislative branches that last indefinite amounts of time. The legislature picks the executive (instead of the voters electing him separately and on a different cycle), so the two branches tend to be in agreement. And the voters are able to change the makeup of parliament to some extent at every election. Also, parliamentary countries seem to have elections based much more on party rather than actual people, so they have more parties with representation, instead of devolving to just two parties per Duverger's Law.
    - anoncake 8y ago
      > It's still much better than the presidential system, because you don't get deadlocks between the executive and legislative branches that last indefinite amounts of time. Sure, but that's a different argument. > (instead of the voters electing him separately and on a different cycle) Nothing prevents having both elections on the same cycle. AFAIK France (which is semi-presidential) somewhat recently aligned their cycles to make that disagreements between president and parliament less likely. > Also, parliamentary countries seem to have elections based much more on party rather than actual people, so they have more parties with representation, instead of devolving to just two parties per Duverger's Law. That actually weakens the claim that parliamentary systems are superior, unless presidential systems somehow cause first-past-the-post. I think they may have a common cause though: If the writers of a country's constitution believe that people should vote for parties, they'll probably chose proportional representation and a parliamentary system. If they want people to vote for individuals, a presidential system with FPTP is the obvious choice.

wowlookatme 8y ago

We're a representative democracy, and for a good reason. Otherwise it would be mob rule and the rights of the minority would be destroyed by the majority.

JohnClark1337 8y ago

hmm, nytimes article about how New York, California, and Texas are the only voices that matter