4 ms·

Why does anyone concern themselves with the popular vote, when it comes down to the electoral college? The popular vote seems like a pointless metric.

by uptown 2y ago

readthenotes1 2y ago
I think he's somewhat addressed that in the article by pointing out that state by State polling is more inaccurate then the national polls in part because it's done so rarely. So I guess using the national pulling as a proxy for state is something they feel is more accurate when they try to figure out the electoral college results. I would find it interesting if pulling in these days is actually able to figure out anything. In addition to the polling problem itself, we have two frontrunners who have probably garnered more "not that one" votes than any previous race in history.
DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
Au contraire, the popular vote should be the only metric that counts. The electoral college and the per-state weighing of votes are pointless and detrimental, as is the first-past-the-post system that has brought about the U.S. two-party system, a system that is almost as bad as a single-party one. Instead I suggest one should move to abolish the electoral college and instead count votes directly. The candidates should all be on the ballot. Then use Approval Voting where each voter gets to mark all candidates that they like. There should be a French-style second round in case the top winners are too close together, say inside a 1% or 5% margin—in other words you could never win by a single vote, you'd always need hundreds of thousands of votes.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  I would also go same way and remove states. Just move everything under centralized federal government. Or maybe keep them for some regional offices, but all deciding power should rest on congress and senate. And even there, getting rid of voting districts and just electing top x number of candidates seems most reasonable solution.
  - DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
    I do not agree. As an analogue, consider "files". Files are good. But do not put each letter in a file of its own. I've seen projects that experimentally used one method definition per file which was also not very workable. But don't put all of your data into a single file, either. People will want to have local representation, which means local elections and boundaries for the reach of local government. When it comes to state-wide and national elections, either re-use these existing boundaries or determine districts using a fair algorithm. The way that politicians get to gerrymander their own seats is an ongoing scandal. With approval voting replacing first-past-the-post, districts in presidential elections would be reduced to a mere organizational function. No redrawing of arbitrary borders should influence the outcome. It will still be important to ensure open and fair procedures; nobody should be forced to drive a car to reach a single distant mail ballot box or voting station only to have then to queue up for hours. This and other measures have been used in the past to defraud voters.
- kcplate 2y ago
  > Au contraire, the popular vote should be the only metric that counts. The electoral college and the per-state weighing of votes are pointless and detrimental Yeah, no thanks. Two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner. We are a republic and not a direct democracy intentionally because the founding fathers realized that mob rule is stupid.
  - DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
    As if the difference between "republic" and "rule of the mob" is decided by having an electoral college. People are getting every bit as riled up for and against candidates as if they voted directly. The only thing that the electors are good for is adjusting counts such that smaller states get proportionally more votes. I find this practice questionable when it comes to electing the president, and on the other hand, that much could be done without an electoral college, at all. On the other hand, if you still want an electoral college, make it so that the weights are evenly distributes—that one Californian voter has as much weight as one from Rhode Island, and that electors representing all the candidates that people voted for are apportioned seats in the college (no winner-takes-it all delegations). The college can then serve as a 'buffer' to prevent the rule of the mob (for people who believe they indeed fulfill that function).
    - DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
      To further my point I looked up the French presidential election procedures; I found the German article more informative than the English one, so I had Copilot translate that one. Turns out there were several referendums over the decades where French voters changed the rules, and they of course vote directly for a candidate. Before you can become a candidate, you have to secure a certain level of support from incumbent elected politicians; there's also a modicum of territorial distribution to the rules to ensure no single region can dominate (wonder how well that works). Anyhoo if you think that France's system is Rule of the Mob then here's why that is so; if you think it's a relatively stable, relatively democratic country, then here's how they manage to be a republic and still allow people to vote directly for presidential candidates: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A4sidentschaftswahl_in_Frankreich https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A4sidentschaftswahl_in_F..., translated by Copilot: The election of the French President is governed by Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution of the Fifth French Republic. Since a referendum in 1962, the President has been directly elected by eligible voters. If no candidate receives an absolute majority of votes in the first round, a runoff election is held between the two candidates who received the most votes in the initial round. In every election so far, a runoff has been necessary. The highest vote share in the first round was achieved by Charles de Gaulle in the 1965 presidential election with 44.6%. The term of office for Presidents was reduced from seven to five years through a referendum in 2000. Since 2002, the French elect the head of state and the members of the National Assembly for five-year terms. Re-election is possible any number of times, but no more than two consecutive terms are allowed. To run for election, a candidate must be at least 18 years old and eligible to vote. Additionally, they must gather at least 500 signatures from supporters who hold elected political offices. Approximately 42,000 officeholders are eligible, including mayors, National Assembly members, senators, and regional or departmental councilors. These signatures must come from at least 30 different departments or French overseas territories, with no department contributing more than one-tenth of the required signatures (i.e., 50 signatures).
cameldrv 2y ago
Because national polling is more frequent, and you can pretty closely approximate a state result with a national poll plus a fixed “lean” for each state.

Why does anyone concern themselves with the popular vote, when it comes down to the electoral college? The popular vote seems like a pointless metric.

by uptown 2y ago

Why does anyone concern themselves with the popular vote, when it comes down to the electoral college? The popular vote seems like a pointless metric.

readthenotes1 2y ago

I think he's somewhat addressed that in the article by pointing out that state by State polling is more inaccurate then the national polls in part because it's done so rarely. So I guess using the national pulling as a proxy for state is something they feel is more accurate when they try to figure out the electoral college results. I would find it interesting if pulling in these days is actually able to figure out anything. In addition to the polling problem itself, we have two frontrunners who have probably garnered more "not that one" votes than any previous race in history.

DemocracyFTW2 2y ago

Au contraire, the popular vote should be the only metric that counts. The electoral college and the per-state weighing of votes are pointless and detrimental, as is the first-past-the-post system that has brought about the U.S. two-party system, a system that is almost as bad as a single-party one. Instead I suggest one should move to abolish the electoral college and instead count votes directly. The candidates should all be on the ballot. Then use Approval Voting where each voter gets to mark all candidates that they like. There should be a French-style second round in case the top winners are too close together, say inside a 1% or 5% margin—in other words you could never win by a single vote, you'd always need hundreds of thousands of votes.

Ekaros 2y ago
I would also go same way and remove states. Just move everything under centralized federal government. Or maybe keep them for some regional offices, but all deciding power should rest on congress and senate. And even there, getting rid of voting districts and just electing top x number of candidates seems most reasonable solution.
- DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
  I do not agree. As an analogue, consider "files". Files are good. But do not put each letter in a file of its own. I've seen projects that experimentally used one method definition per file which was also not very workable. But don't put all of your data into a single file, either. People will want to have local representation, which means local elections and boundaries for the reach of local government. When it comes to state-wide and national elections, either re-use these existing boundaries or determine districts using a fair algorithm. The way that politicians get to gerrymander their own seats is an ongoing scandal. With approval voting replacing first-past-the-post, districts in presidential elections would be reduced to a mere organizational function. No redrawing of arbitrary borders should influence the outcome. It will still be important to ensure open and fair procedures; nobody should be forced to drive a car to reach a single distant mail ballot box or voting station only to have then to queue up for hours. This and other measures have been used in the past to defraud voters.
kcplate 2y ago
> Au contraire, the popular vote should be the only metric that counts. The electoral college and the per-state weighing of votes are pointless and detrimental Yeah, no thanks. Two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner. We are a republic and not a direct democracy intentionally because the founding fathers realized that mob rule is stupid.
- DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
  As if the difference between "republic" and "rule of the mob" is decided by having an electoral college. People are getting every bit as riled up for and against candidates as if they voted directly. The only thing that the electors are good for is adjusting counts such that smaller states get proportionally more votes. I find this practice questionable when it comes to electing the president, and on the other hand, that much could be done without an electoral college, at all. On the other hand, if you still want an electoral college, make it so that the weights are evenly distributes—that one Californian voter has as much weight as one from Rhode Island, and that electors representing all the candidates that people voted for are apportioned seats in the college (no winner-takes-it all delegations). The college can then serve as a 'buffer' to prevent the rule of the mob (for people who believe they indeed fulfill that function).
  - DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
    To further my point I looked up the French presidential election procedures; I found the German article more informative than the English one, so I had Copilot translate that one. Turns out there were several referendums over the decades where French voters changed the rules, and they of course vote directly for a candidate. Before you can become a candidate, you have to secure a certain level of support from incumbent elected politicians; there's also a modicum of territorial distribution to the rules to ensure no single region can dominate (wonder how well that works). Anyhoo if you think that France's system is Rule of the Mob then here's why that is so; if you think it's a relatively stable, relatively democratic country, then here's how they manage to be a republic and still allow people to vote directly for presidential candidates: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A4sidentschaftswahl_in_Frankreich https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A4sidentschaftswahl_in_F..., translated by Copilot: The election of the French President is governed by Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution of the Fifth French Republic. Since a referendum in 1962, the President has been directly elected by eligible voters. If no candidate receives an absolute majority of votes in the first round, a runoff election is held between the two candidates who received the most votes in the initial round. In every election so far, a runoff has been necessary. The highest vote share in the first round was achieved by Charles de Gaulle in the 1965 presidential election with 44.6%. The term of office for Presidents was reduced from seven to five years through a referendum in 2000. Since 2002, the French elect the head of state and the members of the National Assembly for five-year terms. Re-election is possible any number of times, but no more than two consecutive terms are allowed. To run for election, a candidate must be at least 18 years old and eligible to vote. Additionally, they must gather at least 500 signatures from supporters who hold elected political offices. Approximately 42,000 officeholders are eligible, including mayors, National Assembly members, senators, and regional or departmental councilors. These signatures must come from at least 30 different departments or French overseas territories, with no department contributing more than one-tenth of the required signatures (i.e., 50 signatures).

cameldrv 2y ago

Because national polling is more frequent, and you can pretty closely approximate a state result with a national poll plus a fixed “lean” for each state.