Pretty sure that the point has been made. I know it is made repeatedly any time this subject comes up.
And that is kinda the whole point. It would change how the candidates campaign.
They wouldn’t ignore the Republicans in California, or the Democrats in Texas. They wouldn’t ignore Wyoming and Utah entirely.
They’d have to try to get every vote they can, from everywhere they can, as all votes are equal.
The campaigns would be different, and so would the outcomes.
That’s why most countries use a parliamentary system.
The US was still debating whether or not we should have a King when we wrote the Constitution.
I wouldn’t mind having a monarchy, so long as they have the powers granted to the current British monarchy.
I just wanted to touch on this. Say there is a Chernobyl-type nuclear disaster that does turn Wyoming into a irradiated wasteland, with only 20,000 residents left, either too stubborn to leave their houses and towns that they grew up in, or who are part of the long term environmental cleanup effort. In this scenario, Wyoming needs help from the federal government. Wyoming voices should be heard (perhaps even more than now) , and I think it’s totally appropriate for them to still have 2 votes in the Senate, 1 vote in the house, and 3 EV in the EC, even if it is monumentally unfair to a voter in California on a per-capita basis.
I actually agree with this (except, perhaps, the Electoral College part).
After reading some more articles about proposed alternatives, I actually think the best solution is to keep the extra state-level EV but allocate all electors proportionally to how the state voted. This solve multiple problems: it ensures that the national-level popular vote would be relatively close to the EC vote, it gives voters every state a voice (no more “GOP voter in CA not bothering to vote” problem), it gives candidates and parties a reason to address the needs of all states, and it gives states a vote a bit larger than their population would indicate (assuming that is truly a benefit).
Note that in 2016 Trump still would have won under this system, but not with 270 votes so it would have gone to the House (where he would have won). But in reality the campaigning and voting would have been so different that you can’t really make assumptions.
The only downside I see is this would have to be done at the federal level via Constitutional Amendment.
Sure, I could always just move if these unfair voting issues are so critical to me. But then again, if I thought that it was unfair that Delaware gets more proportional votes in the EC than California, I could always move there too.
You can vote for representatives of your state to enact those laws.
This is where having a federal govt that regulates trade between states is a good thing.
But you can vote for a federal representative that may enact a country wide ordinance against impacting certain species.
So?
All you did there was to describe democracy, and point out the flaw in it that everyone doesn’t get everything that they want.
I have no idea how it would be even the slightest bit relevant to your assertion that state borders would have to be erased or redrawn.
Your solutions these problems of voting fairness and unequal representation in government all involve either “give more power to the federal government” , essentially making state borders & laws meaningless, or “tough noogies, democracy isn’t always fair”
If the goal for democracy here is “everyone should have equal voting suffrage on all matters that impact them”, why are you ok with having suffrage limited to arbitrary geographical boundaries surrounding where your primary residence is? If you want to water down state sovereignty to be essentially meaningless, why do you want the state borders to remain as-is, other than “history reasons” and “because that’s the way it is”?
State power was a big deal in the early days of the USA. At that time the US looked more like the current European Union. States were often pissed off at each other and some threatened to leave. But as a citizen of the larger country you had the right to move to and live in the state whose laws you agreed with most.
Later on, for better or worse, federal power was much stronger and increased conformity to where it made little difference which state you lived in. We’re seeing a minor revival in state power now as some states are giving a middle finger to the federal government as passing laws as they see fit.
No, not at all.
It would be giving more power to the people to have a more equal representation in the federal government.
It appears as though you have entirely misunderstood my goals and motives, and have been responding to an argument that no one has made.
Perhaps I misunderstood what I perceived to be your argument from this post:
If your definition of “equality in suffrage” is limited to only “have an equal vote for all representation at the federal level”, then sure, just torpedoing the Senate and switching to popular vote for President will get you there.
My point was that if the goal is truly “equality in suffrage”, then arbitrary geographical boundaries/restrictions on voting shouldn’t matter either.
Or to put it a different way and go back to an earlier example, is it logically consistent to be upset about the fairness of a Nevadan vote for President counting ~50% more than a Californian, but fine with a Californian (who has extensive business in Reno Nevada)'s vote for Reno’s mayor counting for absolutely nothing?
I am talking about having a voice in those who represent you.
That’s equality in suffrage.
If you have a business in a different state, that is still not where you live.
Yes, it is absolutely logically consistent to be for your vote not counting for less, and not demand that you have a say in the local politics of where you don’t live. I don’t even see how those follow.
I also don’t get to vote in China.
Yeah those rocks and trees really need representation.
As a matter of fact SCOTUS explicitly threw out this argument when it ruled that the NJ state senate that gave one seat to each county was unconstitutional. Because people, not trees and rocks, are what these bodies represent.
Hey, I think mathematicians need special representation. We should get a couple EVs.
Even admitting for just this post that it is bad for a president to lose the popular vote, the burden of proof is on you to argue for a better system. Just pointing out how the existing system is bad is insufficient.
~Max
The idea is that candidates would essentially buy votes by providing free food and entertainment, rather than concentrate on good governance. And by extension, it’s a sort of indictment of the voters who would vote for the candidate providing free food and entertainment over the candidates promising good governance.
And it’s absolutely a pertinent concept when considering a direct popular Presidential vote; you already see some of that with Trump’s nonsense about walls, etc… He told people what they wanted to hear more than previous candidates did, and claimed he could do more than other candidates have, and they voted for him, when it was clearly obvious that he was a poor candidate if they got past the desire to own the libs, or screw brown people or whatever motivation they had.
At bottom, aren’t we basically talking about core values that can’t be strictly proved or disproved? If I value democracy as a core value, and you don’t, because you prefer the status quo, what proof would you accept? What proof could I offer a defender of hereditary absolute monarchy, for that matter?
I think, at a minimum, proportional allocation of electors is better, even if it doesn’t really change many results (possibly only 2000 and 2016, and not definitely then). I can’t think of many downsides, particularly if you remove the 270 requirement in the Electoral College (so that only a plurality is required, not an absolute majority).
Small states still get their “over-representation”, but every candidate has a reason to appeal to every state, and no individual voter has cause to feel that their vote is pointless.
I know what it means. It’s just that I see it being invoked anytime a politician makes promises to improve people’s lives. I think it is overused to be more or less meaningless, at this point.
And, as you noted, our current system didn’t stop a poor candidate from attaining office on populism, rather than demonstrating the ability of good governance.
The only form of government that I think would be better than democracy would be a dictatorship where I am in charge. If you all want to go with that, then I’d be down.
Otherwise, the more we are able to get buy in from those who would be governed, the better.
As demographics are changing, the difference in population between states is increasing. At some point, we are going to be in a situation where the candidate that gets the overwhelming majority of the popular vote loses the EC on a regular basis. For how long should they allow this situation to continue before it simply is no longer tolerated? How long should the majority allow the minority to vote in candidates that are promising deep fried butter and county fairs, making promises that benefit only or primarily the minority, to be tolerated and payed for by the majority?
I agree that, in principle, the Electoral College is unfair. Unfortunately, it’s the only thing that produces parity of competition these days.
How about competing on ideas and appealing to the needs of voters, rather than depending on an outdated system that allows a politician to ignore the needs of the majority?
Unfortunately, a lot of factors make that difficult if not impossible - the fact that societies tend to trend liberal over time, the death of elderly GOP voters, the very principles of the Republican Party itself, etc. But that’s a topic for a different thread.
It’s like having an amateur basketball player go up against a professional NBA player. The only way the amateur could hope to compete is if the rules give him something like six or eight points per basket made, instead of just 2-3 points.