3 ms·

This argument never made sense. In a one person one vote system, the concept of a state never comes into play. It is a national election, states are irrelevant.

This argument never made sense. In a one person one vote system, the concept of a state never comes into play. It is a national election, states are irrelevant. Under the electoral college system, states actually come into play. There could be a case where a state grows large enough in population to get 51% of the electoral votes. If that state had a winner take all system, then that state would choose every president. It would 100% dominate, non of the other states would matter. The electoral college is truly a terrible system, unless the founders wanted Florida to decide every election.

runawaybottle 6y ago
Eh, we had a bifurcation of slave states and free states, and a legacy of that in the segregated south. Do you know what would have happened if the majority of the population lived in those states? You’d have a racist executive branch for decades. Popular vote working exactly as you want, but you wouldn’t be singing the popular vote tune when what’s popular is not stuff you believe in. Just some quick googling, not a vetted source: http://inside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/US_History_reader/Chapter5/slavestatedemog.html http://inside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/US_History_reader/Chapt... Those populations looked similar and could have gone either way earlier (hindsight being 20/20, major industrial centers could have emerged in the south). The popular vote in that case may have never led to a Lincoln. In other words, just because there’s a giant population in South with certain regional values, doesn’t mean you get to win every election. The same is true for coastal cities in America now. I do think certain states need more electoral votes added at this point like New York and California. The same way you can fuck them with the popular vote today is the same way they can fuck you with it in the future.
- jhallenworld 6y ago
  What you say is true, but why do you think the present system is better? Arbitrarily weighting different people doesn't really make any sense unless you think it somehow gives more weight to correct or better people.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  > Popular vote working exactly as you want, but you wouldn’t be singing the popular vote tune when what’s popular is not stuff you believe in. I’m reminded of Churchill’s famous aphorism that Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others which have been tried. Yes, it can go badly but it’s still the least bad choice.
conanbatt 6y ago
Everyone gets 1 vote, but not all votes are worth the same. That is true for any voting system.
- kadoban 6y ago
  That seems like an odd claim to me. In a nationwide popular voting system, what votes aren't worth the same?
  - conanbatt 6y ago
    The marginal votes to win an election. Those are so valuable that define most political platforming.
- arok 6y ago
  To put it another way, all votes are equal, but some votes are more equal than others. That sounds vaguely familiar…
  - conanbatt 6y ago
    Welcome to voting systems.
jhallenworld 6y ago
At least it's better than the situation we have with the Senate, where a voter in Wyoming is 68 times more represented than a voter in California. We are seeing the damage from this right now: the minority is having their way in Supreme Court appointments. "James Madison made the following comment about the Senate: In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, the people ought to have permanency and stability. — Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787"

runawaybottle 6y ago

Eh, we had a bifurcation of slave states and free states, and a legacy of that in the segregated south. Do you know what would have happened if the majority of the population lived in those states? You’d have a racist executive branch for decades. Popular vote working exactly as you want, but you wouldn’t be singing the popular vote tune when what’s popular is not stuff you believe in. Just some quick googling, not a vetted source: http://inside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/US_History_reader/Chapter5/slavestatedemog.html http://inside.sfuhs.org/dept/history/US_History_reader/Chapt... Those populations looked similar and could have gone either way earlier (hindsight being 20/20, major industrial centers could have emerged in the south). The popular vote in that case may have never led to a Lincoln. In other words, just because there’s a giant population in South with certain regional values, doesn’t mean you get to win every election. The same is true for coastal cities in America now. I do think certain states need more electoral votes added at this point like New York and California. The same way you can fuck them with the popular vote today is the same way they can fuck you with it in the future.

jhallenworld 6y ago
What you say is true, but why do you think the present system is better? Arbitrarily weighting different people doesn't really make any sense unless you think it somehow gives more weight to correct or better people.
bradleyjg 6y ago
> Popular vote working exactly as you want, but you wouldn’t be singing the popular vote tune when what’s popular is not stuff you believe in. I’m reminded of Churchill’s famous aphorism that Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others which have been tried. Yes, it can go badly but it’s still the least bad choice.

conanbatt 6y ago

Everyone gets 1 vote, but not all votes are worth the same. That is true for any voting system.

kadoban 6y ago
That seems like an odd claim to me. In a nationwide popular voting system, what votes aren't worth the same?
- conanbatt 6y ago
  The marginal votes to win an election. Those are so valuable that define most political platforming.
arok 6y ago
To put it another way, all votes are equal, but some votes are more equal than others. That sounds vaguely familiar…
- conanbatt 6y ago
  Welcome to voting systems.

jhallenworld 6y ago

At least it's better than the situation we have with the Senate, where a voter in Wyoming is 68 times more represented than a voter in California. We are seeing the damage from this right now: the minority is having their way in Supreme Court appointments. "James Madison made the following comment about the Senate: In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, the people ought to have permanency and stability. — Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787"