4 ms·

Not really, it actually assumes that all votes are equal. As soon as two votes from any two different people in the country are inequal, no voting system can be

by just2n 14y ago

Not really, it actually assumes that all votes are equal. As soon as two votes from any two different people in the country are inequal, no voting system can be fair. So following the discussion, he saw we were supposing that all votes be made equal. In seeing this, we've already discussed how this effectively means presidential election is a simple majority, and his point was that simple majority isn't a good system by which to make a decision in a large group of people, that another one, any one that has proportionate voting for multiple candidates, can actually result in a much more agreeable outcome, but it assumes all votes are equal in power. If the question is "should they count the same" -- the answer is an unequivocal yes, and almost every person would agree. Voting reform requires that people put in power by bad systems willingly reform those systems which would see them removed from power. Corruption doesn't remove itself, so discussing this at all is moot, really.

Cushman 14y ago
> If the question is "should they count the same" -- the answer is an unequivocal yes, and almost every person would agree. Voting reform requires that people put in power by bad systems willingly reform those systems which would see them removed from power. Corruption doesn't remove itself, so discussing this at all is moot, really. Did you read what I wrote? That's not true of the National Popular Vote. Legislators in a plurality of states[0] can alter the election for President (and so fundamentally shift the nature of national politics) without any cooperation from the President or any Federal official. [0] Or rather, a number of states comprising a plurality of electors.
- just2n 14y ago
  That wouldn't indicate that corruption could be removed or would ever remove itself. When you give corruption more power (and that's what overriding popular vote is), it is almost always abused, which means the only outcome I see of such a power is to prevent people from voting for president at all, or at the very least to prevent people from electing a president that isn't corrupt or sympathetic to congress and their interests. So I would say any proposal that institutes such a power should be vehemently rejected by the public.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    Sorry, I'm legitimately confused about what you're saying. Who is corrupt here, and how does the popular vote give them more power?
    - just2n 14y ago
      The legislators are corrupt, and being able to override the popular vote gives them more power. The system that puts legislators into place is a local majority vote, which is just as flawed as a national majority vote. It leads to a 2-party system which concentrates power and typically results in corruption.
      - Cushman 14y ago
        I'm confused how you can argue that a national majority vote leads to a 2-party system when we have a 2-party system and we don't have a national majority vote.
        nitrogen 14y ago
        The parent comment said, "The system that puts legislators into place is a local majority vote, which is just as flawed as a national majority vote. It leads to a 2-party system which concentrates power and typically results in corruption." Reduced to a pair of logical statements: Local majority vote --> Two-party system National majority vote --> Two-party system The parent poster did not make a statement of either of these forms: National majority vote <--> Two-party system Two-party system --> National majority vote Thus, the previous poster is not arguing that only a national majority vote leads to a two-party system. In other words, a national majority vote is a sufficient but not necessary condition to have a two-party system. At best, we can infer that the parent poster intends to say that a majority vote on any scale leads to a two-party system, whether local, electoral college, or national, but even that was not explicitly stated.
        Cushman 14y ago

by just2n 14y ago

Cushman 14y ago

> If the question is "should they count the same" -- the answer is an unequivocal yes, and almost every person would agree. Voting reform requires that people put in power by bad systems willingly reform those systems which would see them removed from power. Corruption doesn't remove itself, so discussing this at all is moot, really. Did you read what I wrote? That's not true of the National Popular Vote. Legislators in a plurality of states[0] can alter the election for President (and so fundamentally shift the nature of national politics) without any cooperation from the President or any Federal official. [0] Or rather, a number of states comprising a plurality of electors.

just2n 14y ago
That wouldn't indicate that corruption could be removed or would ever remove itself. When you give corruption more power (and that's what overriding popular vote is), it is almost always abused, which means the only outcome I see of such a power is to prevent people from voting for president at all, or at the very least to prevent people from electing a president that isn't corrupt or sympathetic to congress and their interests. So I would say any proposal that institutes such a power should be vehemently rejected by the public.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Sorry, I'm legitimately confused about what you're saying. Who is corrupt here, and how does the popular vote give them more power?
  - just2n 14y ago
    The legislators are corrupt, and being able to override the popular vote gives them more power. The system that puts legislators into place is a local majority vote, which is just as flawed as a national majority vote. It leads to a 2-party system which concentrates power and typically results in corruption.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      I'm confused how you can argue that a national majority vote leads to a 2-party system when we have a 2-party system and we don't have a national majority vote.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        The parent comment said, "The system that puts legislators into place is a local majority vote, which is just as flawed as a national majority vote. It leads to a 2-party system which concentrates power and typically results in corruption." Reduced to a pair of logical statements: Local majority vote --> Two-party system National majority vote --> Two-party system The parent poster did not make a statement of either of these forms: National majority vote <--> Two-party system Two-party system --> National majority vote Thus, the previous poster is not arguing that only a national majority vote leads to a two-party system. In other words, a national majority vote is a sufficient but not necessary condition to have a two-party system. At best, we can infer that the parent poster intends to say that a majority vote on any scale leads to a two-party system, whether local, electoral college, or national, but even that was not explicitly stated.
        Cushman 14y ago