Don’t be silly, as a registered Republican I have nothing whatsoever to do with how Democrats choose their electors. And as I wrote above, I didn’t expect the electors to use their individual judgement.
I recognized Gillum from a trip to Tallahassee while he was mayor. He later ran for governor (and lost).
~Max
Okay. That’s kind of the point. You crossed party lines to vote, so effectively you didn’t vote for president, and you didn’t even vote for the guys who voted for president. You didn’t make your choice based on personal knowledge of character, which you assured us is one big reason the EC is superior. You voted for a party, not even your preferred party.
Which, again, gives the lie to your statement that our presidential vote has anything to do with personal knowledge of the character of people we actually voted for. They vote as unthinking automatons, they are legally required to do so.
If we replaced them with actual robots, and put an actual robot name on the ballot, the consequences would be exactly the same except people would (presumably and justifiably) see it as an outrageous surrender of franchise to machines. Yes, it would eliminate the possibility of faithless electors, no, this phenomenon is of no consequence. It’s a vanishingly rare occurrence to start with, and when it happens, many states simply replace the elector with one who will vote as the party says.
Okay, now I see why you and RickJay have been pushing this line of questions at me. I don’t believe I made such an assurance, and if I did, it was an error on my part. I will refer you to these sentences from my post #126, with added emphasis:
So you see, I was not using my personal preference for republican principles over democratic principles to argue that the existing electoral college system is better than a national popular vote. I was explaining why, to me, one person one vote isn’t very persuasive in and of itself.
~Max
Here’s you, with added emphasis:
You clarified that you think voters can only be relied upon to judge the characters among them. I’m pointing out that the EC doesn’t even do that. Electors are party elites, not people among us. We don’t choose winning electors, the losers don’t get any electors, most of us aren’t even conscious of who the electors are, and most importantly, the electors’ choice is effectively automatic.
The EC is not an expression of voters choice of character. It’s a mechanism for discarding their choices if need be.
I think there’s a difference between the Elector selection process as originally envisioned/intended , and the EC as currently implemented. One can be in favor of the former (and may be in favor of changes to the EC that push it more towards that direction), but not necessarily the latter.
I agree, the electoral college doesn’t do that.
~Max
With due respect, though, you haven’t connected those dots at all. Your claim is that it is a republican principle that people vote for persons to make decisions for them, rather than to vote to make the decisions directly. (That isn’t really what “republic” means, but let’s roll with your meaning.) You then seem to assert that this is not consistent with a national popular vote.
But… why not? A national popular vote would still result in the people electing a person to make choices on their behalf, which is the “republican” ideal you support. That is, in fact, how 99+ percent of all elections in republics work, including over 99.9 percent of all elections in the United States. It’s how most elections in representative democracies that are not republics (of which there are dozens) work too.
I don’t trust voters to make the best choice when the candidates are far removed from the voter’s personal knowledge, and that is the part which is inconsistent with a national popular vote. The farther away you go from personal knowledge, the less I trust an individual voter’s judgement. Go too far and people will have to make a business out of telling you who to vote for, which is what happened, in my opinion.
~Max
I haven’t read the whole thread, so sorry if this is addressed somewhere else.
To people who think the EC is good but don’t like how the party system chews it up: Do you have a change you would make to the EC to disincentivize this? Or do you think there’s some solution that involves the parties somehow coming around to a position where they no longer feel the need to appoint electors that will always vote party-line? Or is it just an ideal with no practical way of being achieved.
But that is true of pretty much all elections. It’s true of electing people for Senate, the House, your governor, state representatives, mayors, everything; only a tiny portion of people will have substantial personal knowledge of anyone they vote for, even in local elections. I have literally never personally met anyone, in my life, who was mayor of the city I lived in or the councillor of my district.
It would certainly be IDEAL if everyone could have that, but you have to accept they won’t, and at some point people have to have a vote. Giving people a vote is what confers legitimacy on a government; the very function of giving them a vote is an absolutely necessary part of having a representative democracy that can function, whether it’s a republic or a constitutional monarchy. One person one vote is a principle that has a lot of importance to it besides just picking the right person for the job.
The Electoral College is anti-democratic as in “democracy”, not the democratic party. It is a way for mostly empty states to have way more influence on the governmental process than their population numbers deserve. Even the Senate is skewed. A state with 80,000,000 people has 2 senators while a state with only 1,000,000 people also has 2 senators. This is holding us back from becoming the truly great democracy we should be as far as I’m concerned.
This is one area where I go contrarian on this. I think the composition of the senate is just fine. The Senate represents the interest of states as entities. I think there are good reasons for states to be represented that way, which fall outside the scope of this discussion.
But it is an undemocratic body, and as such I think we should reverse the supremacy of Congress so that the House is the upper chamber and the Senate is the lower. The things we entrust to the Senate should be mostly remanded to the House, and vice versa. While we’re at it, let’s trim the upper house term to 4 years so nobody gets so comfortable that they aren’t responsive to consitutuents. (I haven’t fleshed out the details because this is never happening, but that’s a rough outline).
OK, so we agree that the electoral college doesn’t afford the advantages that you claim are important, and doesn’t really afford any advantages at all? With that being the case, why not break out Occam’s Razor and just let the winner be whoever more people vote for? If we can’t find any obvious advantage in the EC, other than depriving people the opportunity to vote for an actual candidate, then why not go the simple route and just do that?
Whereas I have met quite a few of them at the local level. It’s not because I’m involved in local politics, but it might be because you live in a larger city or something. Like, the mayor the next town over used to be a local doctor. Just this primary season I recognized a high school classmate down-ballot. There can’t be more than three or four people between me and personally knowing just about any local politician (friend of a friend of a friend is friends with the politician).
When you get to the state level it’s much less certain and I have to rely on local and regional publications, watch interviews, read platforms, review track records, etc.
When you get to the national level, how far removed do you think you are from the candidate?
What I am saying is that one person one vote becomes less important for picking the right candidate the more distant the candidate is from the people electing him (or her). Didn’t I write that I consider the popular vote to be important mostly because it gives the government legitimacy?
~Max
I don’t “go Occam” (default to the simpler option) with politics. As a principle I default to what we already have.
~Max
OK, so we’re down to “we’ve always done it this way?” This isn’t generally considered a persuasive argument in any context.
Personally, I’m not sure party-line is as big of an issue as the effects of populism, “bread and circuses” & low information voters. If the Democratic/Republican party elites got to choose in 2016, we’d be probably saddled with President Jeb Bush right now, and I think the country would have been much better for it.
But to answer your question: I think switching over to any sort of ranked choice/ approval voting system is key for removing some of the stranglehold the parties have on the EC, which gives voters more incentive to select “wise, moderate” electors as opposed to just straight party-line hacks.
For practical reasons, it may be also necessary to completely uncouple the vote for an individual elector with the current presidential campaign, to provide better incentive for a voter to look beyond just " a vote for me is a vote for XX candidate in 2020!". Which may mean either selecting the Electors in off-years, or just giving up the concept of “Electors” and kicking the presidential selection over to the state legislatures.
Sure proves the point I made earlier, though.
But it’s still just as consistent with the concepts and underlying values of representative democracy and republicanism.
You might argue the results are less EFFECTIVE, which is a different concept and there’s a public choice theory argument or twenty one could make there, but I cannot imagine what evidence would support that. I see no reason to think large scale elections run by a popular vote result in less competent elected officials than local ones. If anything, it is my observation that the more local the elected representative, the less impressive they generally are.
Hold on just a second, I still think the electoral college has a slight advantage over the popular vote when it comes to recounts of close elections, which is admittedly an edge case worth… maybe $39 million per recount? So not much on the grand scale of things. I didn’t actually claim that it has an advantage over a popular vote on any other grounds, except the self-interested "what’s in it for me"s you declined to address.
Oh, I do want to ask - I think you will say no but I wanted to make sure. Are you still going to kick the top three candidates to the House if nobody has an absolute majority?
~Max