5 ms·

The issue the GP is referring to is how the way our electoral process is set up people with more land have more voice in government. In effect, if you are rura

The issue the GP is referring to is how the way our electoral process is set up people with more land have more voice in government. In effect, if you are rural your vote is worth more. This is an extreme in the Senate where a single person's vote has 1.5% of the power of a person in a different state (California vs. Wyoming). And why do we give more voice to the rural vote? Sure they would be a minority otherwise, but so are left handed people and we don't give them more vote. Are they better informed politically than people who live in more densely populated areas? It doesn't really make much sense and I've never heard a argument stronger than "but then the cities would have a lot of political power" without explaining why that is a bad thing.

mc32 4y ago
The electoral college has very seldom deviated from the popular vote. It's happened a handful of times, but not frequently. My point is that people who clamor "popular vote" don't always take into consideration what would happen if we implemented popular democracy. Interestingly, Japan is another country that gives the countryside political advantage and tax advantage.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  It's happened 2/6 times this century. That doesn't strike me as very seldom.
  - wilsonnb3 4y ago
    Historically it is very seldom. We obviously will need more time to see if this 2/6 is a pattern or an aberration.
    - DFHippie 4y ago
      This was just limiting it to this century, though. The pattern is well established and well understood. It isn't even very complicated. Each state has 2 senators and at least one representative. The number of electoral votes of a state is the number of senators plus the number of representatives. So a state like mine, Vermont, has three electoral votes even though we have only about 500,000 citizens. If population size were uncorrelated with political leanings, this would just contribute noise to the electoral process, but it doesn't. Less densely populated regions are conservative. The more such regions there are in a state, the lower the population of the state. So in effect conservative voices are given extra weight in elections. If you believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence -- "all men are created equal" and whatnot --, this should offend you.
- jandrese 4y ago
  "Very seldom" including every single Republican Presidential term for the past 30 years save one. Without the electoral college propping them up the modern Republican party would be in serious trouble.
  - anjbe 4y ago
    > "Very seldom" including every single Republican Presidential term for the past 30 years save one. So, twice?
- dpierce9 4y ago
  Yes just two of the last six elections. This determined 7 of the 9 sitting members of the court.
  - wilsonnb3 4y ago
    The two times that a president has lost the popular vote and won the election in recent history were Bush Jr's first term in 2000 and Trump's term in 2016. Only 3 justices were appointed during those terms, all by Trump in 2017 - 2020. Bush Jr did appoint two justices but they were during his second term, when he won the popular vote. The remaining four justices were appointed by Bush Sr, Clinton, and Obama (2). So I have no idea where you are getting your figure of 7/9 from.
    - dpierce9 4y ago
      So what you are saying is 7/9 justices came from the six elections in this century? Sounds an awful lot like what I said but I guess redundancy is sometimes useful.
- mcwhy 4y ago
  and Japan's government is equally dysfunctional and influenced by minority fringe groups and religious zealots.
splintercell 4y ago
Remember, founding fathers had a very dim view on Democracy, this is why they chose to have a Republic and then restrict the republic through a constitution. If Democrats were losing out to big numbers, they would pro-republic and Republicans would be pro-democracy. But, one of the best explanations for why founding fathers built the system the way they did is this[1], by late Justice Scalia. The fundamental idea is that the American system is created to represent the will of the republic across time and space: - Every bill needs to be passed by all three House, Senate and the President - House recycles very fast (every 2 years) - President recycles at a moderate speed (every 4 years) - Senate recycles at a slow pace (every 6 years, and partially every 2 years) - House represents the population - Senate represents all states equally (or represents land) - Presidency is elected through a hybrid system (electoral college, which is distributed in proportion to the population). - The fundamental idea is that any bill must be agreed upon by: a. The will of the people not just in short term (house), but in mid-term (presidency) and long term (senate) also. When UK wanted out of EU, the remainers believed that they should have a revote because they didn't believe that people voted with full information. Of course, years later a second proxy vote through general elections made the intent clear, but in the US we will not go for a bill to be passed unless its not just what we voted for in the past 2 years, but also what we voted for in past 4 and 6 years. b. The will of fifty states, and territories and not just by a few populous states. In contrast, EU's policy making is all a decision of France and Germany. EU is more 'democratic' than US, but also far more fragile. American Democratic Republic system is a part of experiment of 'Union of Unions'. It's a balance between the different sides. If you make the union too weak, it will fail to hold itself up. Like Articles of Confederation was a failure because it was too weak, pre-Civil War US also turned out to be a union not strong enough. League of Nations wasn't strong enough. But if you make it too strong, then individual states will start walking out because they don't find their interests represented (like UK voting for Brexit from EU). 1. https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0 https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0
- mc32 4y ago
  I totally agree with this view and the "problem" is people want their way _NOW_. They don't have the patience nor want to understand that the other side has the political majority at this time. And when the majority becomes a minority opinion, they also cannot handle that change very well. Today's bare-knuckle politics sure does not help moderate the peaks.
memling 4y ago
> And why do we give more voice to the rural vote? Sure they would be a minority otherwise, but so are left handed people and we don't give them more vote. There are other minorities that we think a bit harder about than left handers. Consider, for example, that African Americans are approximately 12% of the US population.[1] They are not, however, evenly distributed around the United States. For example, they make up 33% of the population of Georgia and 22% in North Carolina,[2] states that crack the top 10 in US population.[3] It took a bit of doing, but I weighted the electoral votes for all 50 states and DC (see [2]; you've got to issue your own queries to get them all) according to the percentage of African-American population (AAPC). For example, Alabama has nine electoral votes and an AAPC of 26.8%, which returns 2.412 adjusted votes. In sum, African Americans account for 70.658 total electoral votes, about 13% of the total compared to their population representation of 12%. That step change is an 8% advantage relative to their total population (538*0.12 ~ 65 electoral votes; 1 - 65/71 ~ 8.45%). This is not, I want to point out, an argument about racial inequality or the fitness of the electoral college to deliver solutions to those kinds of problems. Neither is it an exhaustive treatment (obviously) of every kind of demographic. There are obvious flaws in this approach (you can't split EC votes, EC votes are typically winner-take-all, not all of the population are voting age, etc., etc.). So it's also not intended to say, "Well, akshully..." I do think, though, that there is some nuance that is missing here. Rural people aren't the only minority affected by the electoral college, and questions of geography and demography play important roles in how people vote. It's worth considering what happens when you are in the minority, because it is the rights of the minority that are most likely to be overrun by the majority. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#2020_American_Community_Survey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit... [2]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/GA,NC/PST045221 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/GA,NC/PST045221 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#State_and_territory_rankings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
- jandrese 4y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is here? You are trying to calculate black voting power without even considering the longstanding and effective black voter suppression efforts in states like Georgia, so it's all academic anyway. Replacing tyranny of the majority with tyranny of the minority isn't a win.

mc32 4y ago

The electoral college has very seldom deviated from the popular vote. It's happened a handful of times, but not frequently. My point is that people who clamor "popular vote" don't always take into consideration what would happen if we implemented popular democracy. Interestingly, Japan is another country that gives the countryside political advantage and tax advantage.

colinmhayes 4y ago
It's happened 2/6 times this century. That doesn't strike me as very seldom.
- wilsonnb3 4y ago
  Historically it is very seldom. We obviously will need more time to see if this 2/6 is a pattern or an aberration.
  - DFHippie 4y ago
    This was just limiting it to this century, though. The pattern is well established and well understood. It isn't even very complicated. Each state has 2 senators and at least one representative. The number of electoral votes of a state is the number of senators plus the number of representatives. So a state like mine, Vermont, has three electoral votes even though we have only about 500,000 citizens. If population size were uncorrelated with political leanings, this would just contribute noise to the electoral process, but it doesn't. Less densely populated regions are conservative. The more such regions there are in a state, the lower the population of the state. So in effect conservative voices are given extra weight in elections. If you believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence -- "all men are created equal" and whatnot --, this should offend you.
jandrese 4y ago
"Very seldom" including every single Republican Presidential term for the past 30 years save one. Without the electoral college propping them up the modern Republican party would be in serious trouble.
- anjbe 4y ago
  > "Very seldom" including every single Republican Presidential term for the past 30 years save one. So, twice?
dpierce9 4y ago
Yes just two of the last six elections. This determined 7 of the 9 sitting members of the court.
- wilsonnb3 4y ago
  The two times that a president has lost the popular vote and won the election in recent history were Bush Jr's first term in 2000 and Trump's term in 2016. Only 3 justices were appointed during those terms, all by Trump in 2017 - 2020. Bush Jr did appoint two justices but they were during his second term, when he won the popular vote. The remaining four justices were appointed by Bush Sr, Clinton, and Obama (2). So I have no idea where you are getting your figure of 7/9 from.
  - dpierce9 4y ago
    So what you are saying is 7/9 justices came from the six elections in this century? Sounds an awful lot like what I said but I guess redundancy is sometimes useful.
mcwhy 4y ago
and Japan's government is equally dysfunctional and influenced by minority fringe groups and religious zealots.

splintercell 4y ago

Remember, founding fathers had a very dim view on Democracy, this is why they chose to have a Republic and then restrict the republic through a constitution. If Democrats were losing out to big numbers, they would pro-republic and Republicans would be pro-democracy. But, one of the best explanations for why founding fathers built the system the way they did is this[1], by late Justice Scalia. The fundamental idea is that the American system is created to represent the will of the republic across time and space: - Every bill needs to be passed by all three House, Senate and the President - House recycles very fast (every 2 years) - President recycles at a moderate speed (every 4 years) - Senate recycles at a slow pace (every 6 years, and partially every 2 years) - House represents the population - Senate represents all states equally (or represents land) - Presidency is elected through a hybrid system (electoral college, which is distributed in proportion to the population). - The fundamental idea is that any bill must be agreed upon by: a. The will of the people not just in short term (house), but in mid-term (presidency) and long term (senate) also. When UK wanted out of EU, the remainers believed that they should have a revote because they didn't believe that people voted with full information. Of course, years later a second proxy vote through general elections made the intent clear, but in the US we will not go for a bill to be passed unless its not just what we voted for in the past 2 years, but also what we voted for in past 4 and 6 years. b. The will of fifty states, and territories and not just by a few populous states. In contrast, EU's policy making is all a decision of France and Germany. EU is more 'democratic' than US, but also far more fragile. American Democratic Republic system is a part of experiment of 'Union of Unions'. It's a balance between the different sides. If you make the union too weak, it will fail to hold itself up. Like Articles of Confederation was a failure because it was too weak, pre-Civil War US also turned out to be a union not strong enough. League of Nations wasn't strong enough. But if you make it too strong, then individual states will start walking out because they don't find their interests represented (like UK voting for Brexit from EU). 1. https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0 https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0

mc32 4y ago
I totally agree with this view and the "problem" is people want their way _NOW_. They don't have the patience nor want to understand that the other side has the political majority at this time. And when the majority becomes a minority opinion, they also cannot handle that change very well. Today's bare-knuckle politics sure does not help moderate the peaks.

memling 4y ago

> And why do we give more voice to the rural vote? Sure they would be a minority otherwise, but so are left handed people and we don't give them more vote. There are other minorities that we think a bit harder about than left handers. Consider, for example, that African Americans are approximately 12% of the US population.[1] They are not, however, evenly distributed around the United States. For example, they make up 33% of the population of Georgia and 22% in North Carolina,[2] states that crack the top 10 in US population.[3] It took a bit of doing, but I weighted the electoral votes for all 50 states and DC (see [2]; you've got to issue your own queries to get them all) according to the percentage of African-American population (AAPC). For example, Alabama has nine electoral votes and an AAPC of 26.8%, which returns 2.412 adjusted votes. In sum, African Americans account for 70.658 total electoral votes, about 13% of the total compared to their population representation of 12%. That step change is an 8% advantage relative to their total population (538*0.12 ~ 65 electoral votes; 1 - 65/71 ~ 8.45%). This is not, I want to point out, an argument about racial inequality or the fitness of the electoral college to deliver solutions to those kinds of problems. Neither is it an exhaustive treatment (obviously) of every kind of demographic. There are obvious flaws in this approach (you can't split EC votes, EC votes are typically winner-take-all, not all of the population are voting age, etc., etc.). So it's also not intended to say, "Well, akshully..." I do think, though, that there is some nuance that is missing here. Rural people aren't the only minority affected by the electoral college, and questions of geography and demography play important roles in how people vote. It's worth considering what happens when you are in the minority, because it is the rights of the minority that are most likely to be overrun by the majority. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#2020_American_Community_Survey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit... [2]: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/GA,NC/PST045221 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/GA,NC/PST045221 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#State_and_territory_rankings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

jandrese 4y ago
I'm not sure what your point is here? You are trying to calculate black voting power without even considering the longstanding and effective black voter suppression efforts in states like Georgia, so it's all academic anyway. Replacing tyranny of the majority with tyranny of the minority isn't a win.