3 ms·

> why even waste the breath to complain that you would have won under a different set of rules? Because the other set of rules would prevent a political minori

> why even waste the breath to complain that you would have won under a different set of rules? Because the other set of rules would prevent a political minority from seizing complete control of all branches of the federal government. It's perfectly reasonable to want to point out the fundamental unfairness of the current system which allows this to happen. You're technically correct that we don't know for sure that the GOP wouldn't win the popular vote if that's what campaigns were optimizing for, but I think we can infer the result of such a vote by looking at the popularity of policies that the two biggest parties disagree on.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
That boils down to "we don't like the result, so we should change the rules". That's... not a great argument in a discussion about how one side refuses to accept the results of elections.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  It's a bit more nuanced than that. The argument doesn't start from a position of "we don't like the result" (although I'm sure many people are primarily motivated by that), it starts from a principal that the government should generally reflect the wishes of the majority (while protecting minorities with constitutional rights that require a super-majority to change). I would argue that this is the opposite of "we don't like the result", as it's saying (if steelmanned) "we support this higher ethical principle, regardless of what results that leads to". Also, the fact that one side wishes to change the rules actually is a great argument in this discussion, because changing the rules (through the approved process) is completely different from breaking or ignoring the rules, which is what the other side is accused of doing.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    > Also, the fact that one side wishes to change the rules actually is a great argument in this discussion, because changing the rules (through the approved process) is completely different from breaking or ignoring the rules, which is what the other side is accused of doing. Fair point. I just fear that the people who are primarily motivated by not liking the result are going to not be content with following the approved process. > it starts from a principal that the government should generally reflect the wishes of the majority (while protecting minorities with constitutional rights that require a super-majority to change). It goes a bit further than that. It's a republic, not a democracy, and it's that way for a reason. The founders feared direct democracy, and deliberately did not set up the US to be one. The Electoral College is part of that, but it shows up in several other places (like the existence of Congress itself). So when you say that you want to eliminate the Electoral College to make things more democratic, I get nervous. It's a more fundamental change than many people realize, and takes a much more nuanced evaluation than just "democracy good". And that's where I'm going to stop. Political science is a long way from my specialty, and if you're going to ask me to defend why the Electoral College is preferable to its absence, you will very quickly get me out of my depth. All I will say is, it needs much more careful consideration than just "look at the last N elections".
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      > It's a republic, not a democracy, I know what you're trying to say, but please don't contribute to the spread of that toxic meme. https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democracy https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democra... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/is-u-s-republic-or-democracy-why-some-conservatives-pick-a-side https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/is-u-s... https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-burmila https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democrac... > The Electoral College is part of that, but it shows up in several other places (like the existence of Congress itself). I'm not an expert, but I would say that the existence of the Electoral College mostly reflects the practicalities of trying to run multiple simultaneous elections within semi-sovereign states that have their own voting rules. The existence of the Senate (especially before the Seventeenth Amendment) is a much better argument for the founders' resistance to direct democracy. > It's a more fundamental change than many people realize, and takes a much more nuanced evaluation than just "democracy good". You're absolutely right, and I too have my concerns about reforms like the NPVIC (in particular how it clashes with states' efforts to adopt RCV). My personal preference would be for a more modest reform like the bipartisan Lodge-Gossett Amendment proposed in 1950. By keeping each state's apportionment of electoral votes unchanged, it introduces fewer moving parts, while still encouraging more citizens to vote.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

That boils down to "we don't like the result, so we should change the rules". That's... not a great argument in a discussion about how one side refuses to accept the results of elections.

dane-pgp 4y ago
It's a bit more nuanced than that. The argument doesn't start from a position of "we don't like the result" (although I'm sure many people are primarily motivated by that), it starts from a principal that the government should generally reflect the wishes of the majority (while protecting minorities with constitutional rights that require a super-majority to change). I would argue that this is the opposite of "we don't like the result", as it's saying (if steelmanned) "we support this higher ethical principle, regardless of what results that leads to". Also, the fact that one side wishes to change the rules actually is a great argument in this discussion, because changing the rules (through the approved process) is completely different from breaking or ignoring the rules, which is what the other side is accused of doing.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  > Also, the fact that one side wishes to change the rules actually is a great argument in this discussion, because changing the rules (through the approved process) is completely different from breaking or ignoring the rules, which is what the other side is accused of doing. Fair point. I just fear that the people who are primarily motivated by not liking the result are going to not be content with following the approved process. > it starts from a principal that the government should generally reflect the wishes of the majority (while protecting minorities with constitutional rights that require a super-majority to change). It goes a bit further than that. It's a republic, not a democracy, and it's that way for a reason. The founders feared direct democracy, and deliberately did not set up the US to be one. The Electoral College is part of that, but it shows up in several other places (like the existence of Congress itself). So when you say that you want to eliminate the Electoral College to make things more democratic, I get nervous. It's a more fundamental change than many people realize, and takes a much more nuanced evaluation than just "democracy good". And that's where I'm going to stop. Political science is a long way from my specialty, and if you're going to ask me to defend why the Electoral College is preferable to its absence, you will very quickly get me out of my depth. All I will say is, it needs much more careful consideration than just "look at the last N elections".
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > It's a republic, not a democracy, I know what you're trying to say, but please don't contribute to the spread of that toxic meme. https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democracy https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democra... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/is-u-s-republic-or-democracy-why-some-conservatives-pick-a-side https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/is-u-s... https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-burmila https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democrac... > The Electoral College is part of that, but it shows up in several other places (like the existence of Congress itself). I'm not an expert, but I would say that the existence of the Electoral College mostly reflects the practicalities of trying to run multiple simultaneous elections within semi-sovereign states that have their own voting rules. The existence of the Senate (especially before the Seventeenth Amendment) is a much better argument for the founders' resistance to direct democracy. > It's a more fundamental change than many people realize, and takes a much more nuanced evaluation than just "democracy good". You're absolutely right, and I too have my concerns about reforms like the NPVIC (in particular how it clashes with states' efforts to adopt RCV). My personal preference would be for a more modest reform like the bipartisan Lodge-Gossett Amendment proposed in 1950. By keeping each state's apportionment of electoral votes unchanged, it introduces fewer moving parts, while still encouraging more citizens to vote.