4 ms·

> 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

> 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).
tzs 2y ago
Compare to what we have instead: 5 mountain lions and 10 sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Voting is by district, with each district electing representatives to attend the meeting where dinner plans will be proposed and voted on. The number of representatives allocated to each district is based on population, but must be a positive integer, and the dinner planing meeting is capped at 8 representatives. Mountain lions are solitary. The 5 mountain lions live in 5 different districts. The 10 sheep all live in the same herd, which is in a 6th district. By population then each mountain lion district should get 0.533 representatives, and the sheep district should get 5.333 representatives. But representatives must be a positive integer, so the mountain lions districts have to each get rounded up to 1. And with the meeting capped at 8 that only leaves 3 for the sheep.
- kcplate 2y ago
  Which is still better than the population of 10 counties that tend to vote they same exact way every time on two different coasts separated 2500 miles deciding on a single person to represent 335M people, 50 states and countless districts in between. I am not arguing that what we have is perfect, it’s not…but direct democracy or god forbid these ranked choice and run off voting schemes don’t improve our ability to get anything but more of the same two shitty political parties and their same two shit candidates that rise to the tops of their respective political cesspools. If it were up to me, sortition would be how we select a president.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - aragilar 2y ago
    RCV and multi-member works in other countries for their parliaments, I'm not sure why it wouldn't work in the US (the president is a different issue, given it's a single person with lots of power).
Xen9 2y ago
Mob rule sucks. However Kropotkin would correctly point out that, in representative democracy, as soon officials are elected their opposite candidates are prey. Direct democracy prevents this, IE two sides disagree with each other & coexist without fear.
- kcplate 2y ago
  Want to explain how? I don’t see how direct democracy prevents this…
  - Xen9 2y ago
    In representative democracy there's little to stop the officials from passing laws to suppress opposition or passing laws to hide the fact that they are doing so. In direct democracy, even while you may be in majority in the issues that do not impact your opposition negatively, you still need to convince the voters to actually attack them. Laws to obfuscate things are less likely to pass. Consequently to be in the minority; to disagree will be more dangerous in reprentative democracy. Thus Kropotkin's point in my interpretation was that (since the voters will inevitably be occasionnally wrrong and in these cases those who were right will be needed once the problems shows) this will effectively corrode a community: in the next election there may not be opposition because they have left away.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      Perhaps I am dense or perhaps you are unclear, but I am still unconvinced how what you are describing as positive attributes of a direct vs representative democracy for the US would or could be any better than what we have now. It seems like you are assuming that there is no and never could be tyranny of the majority…or perhaps that’s a feature in your analysis that you feel is a net positive. In a smaller homogeneous country you could have a point (including our individual states), but in a country as large, diverse, and powerful as the united states it seems to me that you need that balance of power spread amongst the entities of the country..both the people in the form of their representatives and the states via their representatives (i.e. senate and electoral college) as it relates to election of the executive.

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).

tzs 2y ago

Compare to what we have instead: 5 mountain lions and 10 sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Voting is by district, with each district electing representatives to attend the meeting where dinner plans will be proposed and voted on. The number of representatives allocated to each district is based on population, but must be a positive integer, and the dinner planing meeting is capped at 8 representatives. Mountain lions are solitary. The 5 mountain lions live in 5 different districts. The 10 sheep all live in the same herd, which is in a 6th district. By population then each mountain lion district should get 0.533 representatives, and the sheep district should get 5.333 representatives. But representatives must be a positive integer, so the mountain lions districts have to each get rounded up to 1. And with the meeting capped at 8 that only leaves 3 for the sheep.

kcplate 2y ago
Which is still better than the population of 10 counties that tend to vote they same exact way every time on two different coasts separated 2500 miles deciding on a single person to represent 335M people, 50 states and countless districts in between. I am not arguing that what we have is perfect, it’s not…but direct democracy or god forbid these ranked choice and run off voting schemes don’t improve our ability to get anything but more of the same two shitty political parties and their same two shit candidates that rise to the tops of their respective political cesspools. If it were up to me, sortition would be how we select a president.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- aragilar 2y ago
  RCV and multi-member works in other countries for their parliaments, I'm not sure why it wouldn't work in the US (the president is a different issue, given it's a single person with lots of power).

Xen9 2y ago

Mob rule sucks. However Kropotkin would correctly point out that, in representative democracy, as soon officials are elected their opposite candidates are prey. Direct democracy prevents this, IE two sides disagree with each other & coexist without fear.

kcplate 2y ago
Want to explain how? I don’t see how direct democracy prevents this…
- Xen9 2y ago
  In representative democracy there's little to stop the officials from passing laws to suppress opposition or passing laws to hide the fact that they are doing so. In direct democracy, even while you may be in majority in the issues that do not impact your opposition negatively, you still need to convince the voters to actually attack them. Laws to obfuscate things are less likely to pass. Consequently to be in the minority; to disagree will be more dangerous in reprentative democracy. Thus Kropotkin's point in my interpretation was that (since the voters will inevitably be occasionnally wrrong and in these cases those who were right will be needed once the problems shows) this will effectively corrode a community: in the next election there may not be opposition because they have left away.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    Perhaps I am dense or perhaps you are unclear, but I am still unconvinced how what you are describing as positive attributes of a direct vs representative democracy for the US would or could be any better than what we have now. It seems like you are assuming that there is no and never could be tyranny of the majority…or perhaps that’s a feature in your analysis that you feel is a net positive. In a smaller homogeneous country you could have a point (including our individual states), but in a country as large, diverse, and powerful as the united states it seems to me that you need that balance of power spread amongst the entities of the country..both the people in the form of their representatives and the states via their representatives (i.e. senate and electoral college) as it relates to election of the executive.