18 ms·

It massively benefits the GOP, which is why it will never change.

by jibalt 4y ago

rob74 4y ago
Ok, by this logic Ranked Choice Voting has about the same chances as the proverbial snowball in hell, because if it gets adopted, it would be bad for both currently dominant parties... To sum it up, in a two-party system there are three kinds of issues: - issues which both parties can agree upon (getting fewer and fewer in the US currently). - issues which benefit one party more than the other, which get polarized, no matter how obvious they seem at first. - issues which could potentially be bad for both parties, which are not even seriously discussed.
- egberts1 4y ago
  Mmmm, see Australia for their implementation of rank voting and two major political parties.
gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
From what I understand, the EC benefits ‘the States’ as landmasses, and since most of those lands are rural, and rural areas tend to vote GOP, the GOP ultimately benefit. Obviously it wasn’t set up to be like this: the GOP just evolved to fill the niche of rural politics to get the power. If anything, maybe there was a bias towards physiocrats vs urban liberals in the founders’ day that now manifests as Red v Blue. I’m not sure if I can see many first principles justifications for giving rural areas such a mechanism of power, but I also don’t see the entire US being dominated by LA and NYC as a good thing either.
- jibalt 4y ago
  "the entire US being dominated by LA and NYC as a good thing either" This is a ridiculous strawman. One person one vote is a good thing, and LA and NYC do not nearly have a majority of the population ... but if they did, then political outcomes should indeed by dominated by the majority vote.
  - paulgb 4y ago
    In (at least) every election since 2000, Democrats in NY and California have been weighted more heavily than they would be under popular vote. Democrats only need %50 + 1 votes in each state to win every electoral college vote in that state, including the ones allocated to those states because of the republican voters who live there. If you do the math, this effect outweighs the slightly lower per capita number of electoral votes.
    - jibalt 4y ago
      I've done the math; this is false.
      - paulgb 4y ago
        In 2016, between NY and CA, Democrats got 13,309,912 votes out of a total of 136,669,276, or 9.74% of the popular vote. Because of winning NY and CA, they got 84/538 electoral votes, or 15.61%. Technically, you also need to figure in the fact that by winning NY and CA it also means that some Republican votes in that popular vote denominator are also removed, so it gets a bit more complicated, but here's the full math if you want to check it. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1haVZVC3iYBOMwCO2ZZia2CwpGBYdEAoF_y05wepWzOE/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1haVZVC3iYBOMwCO2ZZia...
        bombcar 4y ago
        More importantly, political operatives on both sides know how to predict election-related action based on our current system. Nobody knows how to predict it based on another system, so they're all conservative as in wanting to keep the status quo. If the voting system changed, there's no telling how many people would start or stop voting based on the new rules.
  - humanrebar 4y ago
    You're ignoring that it's already easier to campaign in higher density areas. Each urban voter is already easier to reach (knock on doors, have BBQs, bus to polls, etc.).
- LordKeren 4y ago
  In the US election system for most of the states right now, there is only 2 logical scenarios Direct voting (popular votes) State based (like the senate) The current electoral college is an arbitrary blend of the two where it’s somewhat proportional (states EC count is roughly related to their population*) but also all states get 1 base vote, plus one per senator— resulting in states like Wyoming having 3 votes despite their tiny population, making each Wyoming citizens vote objectively more impactful than the states with populations above the median Except this isn’t even true— because it doesn’t matter. Since it’s winner takes all, swing states are all that matters to presidential campaigns. If you’re in a small state that is also dominated by one party, your outsized vote still does not matter The only effect of the electoral college is to overemphasize swing state’s votes.
- belorn 4y ago
  > I’m not sure if I can see many first principles justifications for giving rural areas such a mechanism of power The primary justification to give states such power is that otherwise they might leave the federation. One have to first ask why areas with radically different population density should be governed under the same government, rather than having them rule over themselves. Two clear examples of non-proportional representation is EU and Iceland. EU has given the 3 smallest nations 6 representative each, which is just a bit less than 1% of the total votes. However if EU used proportional representation they wouldn't even get 1 representative, as the smallest one has less than 0.1% of the population in EU. Germany in contrast holds around 13% of the votes, with about 20% of the total populations. Iceland has non-proportional representation for a rather obvious reason. Over 51% of people who live in Iceland live in the capital region. A proportional representation democracy would be identical to a dictatorship. In order to avoid this they gave each rural area just enough representatives so that the sum would have more votes than the capital alone. If all rural area went together they decide, but the capital by virtue of being the biggest region still holds the power in practically all situations.
  - lambertsimnel 4y ago
    > Iceland has non-proportional representation for a rather obvious reason. Over 51% of people who live in Iceland live in the capital region. A proportional representation democracy would be identical to a dictatorship. But Iceland has proportional representation. I wonder whether you mean that it doesn't have at-large proportional representation (i.e. only one district). If so, I tend to agree that merging all of the districts would be a backwards step. Having said that, I still believe it would be far from a dictatorship.
BurningFrog 4y ago
It benefits rural voters. If Democrats stopped being the party of city people, they could compete for that vote.
- LordKeren 4y ago
  It does not benefit rural voters. It only benefits swing states. You don’t see many candidates campaigning in Nebraska instead of Florida
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    That's a separate issue. I'm talking about this one: Nebraska has a 2.0M population and 5 electors = 0.4M people per elector California has a 39M population and 55 electors = 0.7M people per elector.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Let's put it on the table, not that it's going to matter - it benefits the white establishment. The US was founded by white supremacist slaveowners taking stolen land through genocide and warfare. Its power structures were designed to maintain that status quo - keeping the white establishment in power while disenfranchising all other groups. That this race-based stratification of power is less overt now as it was in the 18th century isn't relevant, those power structures and the incentives they created still exist and still favor the white establishment. The "rural vs city-dwellers" and "population" debates tend to be proxies for race - the population in urban areas skews nonwhite, the population in rural areas is overwhelmingly white. The American right and the Republican party have, implicitly and explicitly, voiced their concern and fear of losing white power to a demographic shift towards minority status for years. If that weren't the case, the electoral college would probably have been dumped ages ago. It's arcane and awkward and is only good for that one thing.
    - tastyfreeze 4y ago
      Please read some history. Framing America's founding in racism is dishonest at best. The history of every civilization has been of one group in power doing what it can to maintain power. Race has absolutely nothing to do with the power dynamic. While westward expansion did kill many natives at the hands of settlers, not just white, the majority of the native population had already expired long before westward expansion. Diseases introduced by Europeans wiped out an estimated 90% of the native population before the colonies were established. By the time of Manifest Destiny the Americas were empty compared to pre-European contact populations.

It massively benefits the GOP, which is why it will never change.

by jibalt 4y ago

It massively benefits the GOP, which is why it will never change.

Ok, by this logic Ranked Choice Voting has about the same chances as the proverbial snowball in hell, because if it gets adopted, it would be bad for both currently dominant parties... To sum it up, in a two-party system there are three kinds of issues: - issues which both parties can agree upon (getting fewer and fewer in the US currently). - issues which benefit one party more than the other, which get polarized, no matter how obvious they seem at first. - issues which could potentially be bad for both parties, which are not even seriously discussed.

egberts1 4y ago
Mmmm, see Australia for their implementation of rank voting and two major political parties.

gunfighthacksaw 4y ago

From what I understand, the EC benefits ‘the States’ as landmasses, and since most of those lands are rural, and rural areas tend to vote GOP, the GOP ultimately benefit. Obviously it wasn’t set up to be like this: the GOP just evolved to fill the niche of rural politics to get the power. If anything, maybe there was a bias towards physiocrats vs urban liberals in the founders’ day that now manifests as Red v Blue. I’m not sure if I can see many first principles justifications for giving rural areas such a mechanism of power, but I also don’t see the entire US being dominated by LA and NYC as a good thing either.

jibalt 4y ago
"the entire US being dominated by LA and NYC as a good thing either" This is a ridiculous strawman. One person one vote is a good thing, and LA and NYC do not nearly have a majority of the population ... but if they did, then political outcomes should indeed by dominated by the majority vote.
- paulgb 4y ago
  In (at least) every election since 2000, Democrats in NY and California have been weighted more heavily than they would be under popular vote. Democrats only need %50 + 1 votes in each state to win every electoral college vote in that state, including the ones allocated to those states because of the republican voters who live there. If you do the math, this effect outweighs the slightly lower per capita number of electoral votes.
  - jibalt 4y ago
    I've done the math; this is false.
    - paulgb 4y ago
      In 2016, between NY and CA, Democrats got 13,309,912 votes out of a total of 136,669,276, or 9.74% of the popular vote. Because of winning NY and CA, they got 84/538 electoral votes, or 15.61%. Technically, you also need to figure in the fact that by winning NY and CA it also means that some Republican votes in that popular vote denominator are also removed, so it gets a bit more complicated, but here's the full math if you want to check it. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1haVZVC3iYBOMwCO2ZZia2CwpGBYdEAoF_y05wepWzOE/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1haVZVC3iYBOMwCO2ZZia...
      - bombcar 4y ago
        More importantly, political operatives on both sides know how to predict election-related action based on our current system. Nobody knows how to predict it based on another system, so they're all conservative as in wanting to keep the status quo. If the voting system changed, there's no telling how many people would start or stop voting based on the new rules.
- humanrebar 4y ago
  You're ignoring that it's already easier to campaign in higher density areas. Each urban voter is already easier to reach (knock on doors, have BBQs, bus to polls, etc.).
LordKeren 4y ago
In the US election system for most of the states right now, there is only 2 logical scenarios Direct voting (popular votes) State based (like the senate) The current electoral college is an arbitrary blend of the two where it’s somewhat proportional (states EC count is roughly related to their population*) but also all states get 1 base vote, plus one per senator— resulting in states like Wyoming having 3 votes despite their tiny population, making each Wyoming citizens vote objectively more impactful than the states with populations above the median Except this isn’t even true— because it doesn’t matter. Since it’s winner takes all, swing states are all that matters to presidential campaigns. If you’re in a small state that is also dominated by one party, your outsized vote still does not matter The only effect of the electoral college is to overemphasize swing state’s votes.
belorn 4y ago
> I’m not sure if I can see many first principles justifications for giving rural areas such a mechanism of power The primary justification to give states such power is that otherwise they might leave the federation. One have to first ask why areas with radically different population density should be governed under the same government, rather than having them rule over themselves. Two clear examples of non-proportional representation is EU and Iceland. EU has given the 3 smallest nations 6 representative each, which is just a bit less than 1% of the total votes. However if EU used proportional representation they wouldn't even get 1 representative, as the smallest one has less than 0.1% of the population in EU. Germany in contrast holds around 13% of the votes, with about 20% of the total populations. Iceland has non-proportional representation for a rather obvious reason. Over 51% of people who live in Iceland live in the capital region. A proportional representation democracy would be identical to a dictatorship. In order to avoid this they gave each rural area just enough representatives so that the sum would have more votes than the capital alone. If all rural area went together they decide, but the capital by virtue of being the biggest region still holds the power in practically all situations.
- lambertsimnel 4y ago
  > Iceland has non-proportional representation for a rather obvious reason. Over 51% of people who live in Iceland live in the capital region. A proportional representation democracy would be identical to a dictatorship. But Iceland has proportional representation. I wonder whether you mean that it doesn't have at-large proportional representation (i.e. only one district). If so, I tend to agree that merging all of the districts would be a backwards step. Having said that, I still believe it would be far from a dictatorship.

BurningFrog 4y ago

It benefits rural voters. If Democrats stopped being the party of city people, they could compete for that vote.

LordKeren 4y ago
It does not benefit rural voters. It only benefits swing states. You don’t see many candidates campaigning in Nebraska instead of Florida
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  That's a separate issue. I'm talking about this one: Nebraska has a 2.0M population and 5 electors = 0.4M people per elector California has a 39M population and 55 electors = 0.7M people per elector.
- krapp 4y ago
  Let's put it on the table, not that it's going to matter - it benefits the white establishment. The US was founded by white supremacist slaveowners taking stolen land through genocide and warfare. Its power structures were designed to maintain that status quo - keeping the white establishment in power while disenfranchising all other groups. That this race-based stratification of power is less overt now as it was in the 18th century isn't relevant, those power structures and the incentives they created still exist and still favor the white establishment. The "rural vs city-dwellers" and "population" debates tend to be proxies for race - the population in urban areas skews nonwhite, the population in rural areas is overwhelmingly white. The American right and the Republican party have, implicitly and explicitly, voiced their concern and fear of losing white power to a demographic shift towards minority status for years. If that weren't the case, the electoral college would probably have been dumped ages ago. It's arcane and awkward and is only good for that one thing.
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    Please read some history. Framing America's founding in racism is dishonest at best. The history of every civilization has been of one group in power doing what it can to maintain power. Race has absolutely nothing to do with the power dynamic. While westward expansion did kill many natives at the hands of settlers, not just white, the majority of the native population had already expired long before westward expansion. Diseases introduced by Europeans wiped out an estimated 90% of the native population before the colonies were established. By the time of Manifest Destiny the Americas were empty compared to pre-European contact populations.