3 ms·

No, the United States has an Electoral College for very specific reasons that are just as true today and they were when the Constitution was written. It is a s

No, the United States has an Electoral College for very specific reasons that are just as true today and they were when the Constitution was written. It is a shame that political parties formed in the first place, but George Washington couldn't have his way all the time. It has nothing to do with the voting. It had a lot to do with the who controlled information. I get the feeling with the internet of today he would have fared quite a bit better (92 was 2 years before Netscape was founded).

davidw 7y ago
The EC and ranked choice voting are two different, and compatible things. You could have RCV within each state, for instance.
- protomyth 7y ago
  Ranked choice might work for parliaments, but it would just create unwelcome surprises in the US. I cannot help but think what happened in a sport (NASCAR) with its switch from winner take all to a series of rankings would mean if it were something as important as voting. You might find sports is not a serious argument, but this is the US and the reaction shows some tendencies towards other aspects of life.
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    FPTP is one of the most efficient and fundamental enemies of democracy, plaguing the USA. Everyone agrees partisanship is bad, people looooove a “bipartisan” bill, but FPTP mathematically converges on a two party system, always. It fuels tribalism and us-vs-them mentality like nothing else and perpetuates a political aristocracy through perverse incentives and hamstrung competition. To see this in effect, consider that a major party is incentivised to fund fringe opposition parties which will steal votes from the main rival. Ask yourself how healthy that democracy can be. There are many alternatives and RCV might not be your first choice, but make no mistake about it: FPTP has to go. Stat.
    - protomyth 7y ago
      The US is not, and has never been, a democracy. The US is a republic where there is a balance between the people, states, and federal. Tribalism is the nature of humans, its how we got this far. Heck, we pack bond with non-humans and even mechanical things. Fancy voting will not change that. FPTP is here in the US to stay, because there would be chaos with the other voting systems and the accusations of rigging would be rampant.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        > FPTP is here in the US to stay, because there would be chaos with the other voting systems and the accusations of rigging would be rampant. FPTP is probably here to stay because of pure inertia. The rest of the claims need support.
      - vkou 7y ago
        The US is a democracy, it is not a direct democracy. No democracy that currently exists is a direct democracy. You're splitting hairs. Also, 'Republic' is a meaningless description of a country, because it conveys no practical information about its form of government. Norway is not a republic. North Korea is a republic. Canada is not a republic. Russia is a republic.
    - anderskaseorg 7y ago
      RCV is better than FPTP, but it still mathematically converges on a two party system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q7rzqJ0YS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q7rzqJ0YS8 https://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html https://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html There are better single-winner systems that truly fix this problem, of which the clearest example is approval voting.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Everyone agrees partisanship is bad, Partisanship is generally good,or at least not bad, in democracies. Having two big-tent parties that shift platforms in search of a minimal winning coalition renders partisanship into empty tribalism, which is bad. > people looooove a “bipartisan” bill Bipartisan bills are the worst because they typically represent consensus of the (otherwise fragmented) elites against the people. > but FPTP mathematically converges on a two party system, always. FPTP creates structural incentives toward a two-party system, but voting behavior and party membership is not mathematically-determined behavior and thus no vote counting system “mathematically converges on” any party arrangement. > To see this in effect, consider that a major party is incentivised to fund fringe opposition parties which will steal votes from the main rival. And yet they rarely do; more often, and mor perniciously in practical effect, is that they are incentivized to negative campaigning since getting someone who would otherwise vote for the opposition to not vote is just as good as getting someone who is undecided to vote for you. > There are many alternatives and RCV might not be your first choice, but make no mistake about it IRV is very nearly the worst even semi-seriously advocated method that isn't FPTP (I won't call it RCV, since there are many ranked choice methods and IRV is worse than virtually all the rest.) It is so little of an improvement over FPTP that I suspect the harm it would do to the entire idea of electoral reform through the disappointment it would produce in failing to fix the problems motivating a change in voting system would outweigh the very slight improvements it would produce.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    It's not that its not a serious argument its that it is not yet made. Please expand on that.
- tunesmith 7y ago
  Fine for state and house/state elections, but doesn't work for presidential elections. Splitting the EC below a strict majority of EVs sends the election to the House.
erik_seaberg 7y ago
The Electoral College was supposed to be chosen by their community to go meet and discuss the candidates. When they get appointed anonymously because they've pledged obedience to a political party, they've rejected their responsibility.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  I'd argue that even the option to reject that responsibility was removed when the political parties put their presidential candidates' names on the ballot, instead of all the names of their electors. It seems fundamentally fraudulent to do that. It makes it look like the popular vote actually matters in a presidential election. It's really a bunch of people you have never heard of, voting the way they were told to vote, while under threat of party excommunication if they reneg. There's more democracy to it whenever the Catholic cardinals elect a new monarch-for-life. The original idea, to send representatives of the community in good standing to make their own decisions in the best interests of those communities, was well-intentioned. It isn't the modern elector's fault that their role has been nullified and obviated by political undermining.

davidw 7y ago

The EC and ranked choice voting are two different, and compatible things. You could have RCV within each state, for instance.

protomyth 7y ago
Ranked choice might work for parliaments, but it would just create unwelcome surprises in the US. I cannot help but think what happened in a sport (NASCAR) with its switch from winner take all to a series of rankings would mean if it were something as important as voting. You might find sports is not a serious argument, but this is the US and the reaction shows some tendencies towards other aspects of life.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  FPTP is one of the most efficient and fundamental enemies of democracy, plaguing the USA. Everyone agrees partisanship is bad, people looooove a “bipartisan” bill, but FPTP mathematically converges on a two party system, always. It fuels tribalism and us-vs-them mentality like nothing else and perpetuates a political aristocracy through perverse incentives and hamstrung competition. To see this in effect, consider that a major party is incentivised to fund fringe opposition parties which will steal votes from the main rival. Ask yourself how healthy that democracy can be. There are many alternatives and RCV might not be your first choice, but make no mistake about it: FPTP has to go. Stat.
  - protomyth 7y ago
    The US is not, and has never been, a democracy. The US is a republic where there is a balance between the people, states, and federal. Tribalism is the nature of humans, its how we got this far. Heck, we pack bond with non-humans and even mechanical things. Fancy voting will not change that. FPTP is here in the US to stay, because there would be chaos with the other voting systems and the accusations of rigging would be rampant.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      > FPTP is here in the US to stay, because there would be chaos with the other voting systems and the accusations of rigging would be rampant. FPTP is probably here to stay because of pure inertia. The rest of the claims need support.
    - vkou 7y ago
      The US is a democracy, it is not a direct democracy. No democracy that currently exists is a direct democracy. You're splitting hairs. Also, 'Republic' is a meaningless description of a country, because it conveys no practical information about its form of government. Norway is not a republic. North Korea is a republic. Canada is not a republic. Russia is a republic.
  - anderskaseorg 7y ago
    RCV is better than FPTP, but it still mathematically converges on a two party system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q7rzqJ0YS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q7rzqJ0YS8 https://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html https://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html There are better single-winner systems that truly fix this problem, of which the clearest example is approval voting.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Everyone agrees partisanship is bad, Partisanship is generally good,or at least not bad, in democracies. Having two big-tent parties that shift platforms in search of a minimal winning coalition renders partisanship into empty tribalism, which is bad. > people looooove a “bipartisan” bill Bipartisan bills are the worst because they typically represent consensus of the (otherwise fragmented) elites against the people. > but FPTP mathematically converges on a two party system, always. FPTP creates structural incentives toward a two-party system, but voting behavior and party membership is not mathematically-determined behavior and thus no vote counting system “mathematically converges on” any party arrangement. > To see this in effect, consider that a major party is incentivised to fund fringe opposition parties which will steal votes from the main rival. And yet they rarely do; more often, and mor perniciously in practical effect, is that they are incentivized to negative campaigning since getting someone who would otherwise vote for the opposition to not vote is just as good as getting someone who is undecided to vote for you. > There are many alternatives and RCV might not be your first choice, but make no mistake about it IRV is very nearly the worst even semi-seriously advocated method that isn't FPTP (I won't call it RCV, since there are many ranked choice methods and IRV is worse than virtually all the rest.) It is so little of an improvement over FPTP that I suspect the harm it would do to the entire idea of electoral reform through the disappointment it would produce in failing to fix the problems motivating a change in voting system would outweigh the very slight improvements it would produce.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  It's not that its not a serious argument its that it is not yet made. Please expand on that.
tunesmith 7y ago
Fine for state and house/state elections, but doesn't work for presidential elections. Splitting the EC below a strict majority of EVs sends the election to the House.

erik_seaberg 7y ago

The Electoral College was supposed to be chosen by their community to go meet and discuss the candidates. When they get appointed anonymously because they've pledged obedience to a political party, they've rejected their responsibility.

logfromblammo 7y ago
I'd argue that even the option to reject that responsibility was removed when the political parties put their presidential candidates' names on the ballot, instead of all the names of their electors. It seems fundamentally fraudulent to do that. It makes it look like the popular vote actually matters in a presidential election. It's really a bunch of people you have never heard of, voting the way they were told to vote, while under threat of party excommunication if they reneg. There's more democracy to it whenever the Catholic cardinals elect a new monarch-for-life. The original idea, to send representatives of the community in good standing to make their own decisions in the best interests of those communities, was well-intentioned. It isn't the modern elector's fault that their role has been nullified and obviated by political undermining.