Electoral college

[ElvisL1ves]

@Whack-a-Mole

So then by this measure the Founding Fathers were mistaken in setting up the Senate since clearly small state Senators wield more power than they are entitled to.

You cannot separate that decision from the politics, even diplomacy if you like, that was needed to cobble a nation together from individual states with very disparate populations and economies. The bicameral system was one of many grand compromise measures the First Constitutional Convention undertook out of necessity.

They also generally expected that their document would be almost as temporary as the Articles of Confederation had been, since rapid development would make it unworkable and obsolete. The general understanding was that they’d be at it again, writing yet a new document from scratch, within most of their own lifetimes.

The “mistake” that has been made for many generations now has been in trying to make that ancient document itself, not just its democratic principles, work in an environment that its writers could not imagine.

[Blaster_Master]

I think this issue is really a lot simpler than many people are making it. Imagine we have a straight democracy. According to a quick google search, I see that 65.6% of the population is white, non-hispanic, so if a candidate found a platform that overwhelmingly appealled to white people and overwhelmingly offended minorities, like say that all white people will pay no income taxes, assuming everyone votes in their own best interest, the chances that this person wins are pretty high, and yet he’s a terrible candidate. When you introduce the districting, as illustrated in the linked article, the probability of this lopsided candidate winning drops, and that’s a good thing, because he’s a terrible candidate. This is obviously an extreme situation that wouldn’t happen, but I think it illustrates the importance of why individual voting power in lopsided elections is important.

The point is, with strict democracy, you only need to appeal to enough blocs to guarantee a majority. In some cases this doesn’t mean much, but it is possible that appealling to some majority blocs could be disasterous to some minority blocs, in a way that is often called “tyranny by the majority”.

Now, of course, one argument is that you’re just switching from ideological, racial, or cultural blocs into purely geographical ones which are less important, and not instead of appealling to the top 51% of the ideological blocs you appeal to the top 51% of the geographical ones, and you have the same problems. However, by the very nature of the way states are composed, by being in different regions, having varying ratios of urban vs. rural, having different racial make-ups, it is much more difficult for the blocs to line up in any way that could cause that same tyranny by the majority result, and this is easily demonstrated by the fact that the top two most populous states are both solid strongholds for opposing parties.

And the swing state phenomenon is meaningful too. No one is going to forget the interests of California or Texas or New York even if they are strongholds for their parties, because if they can still piss them off if they adjust their positions too much to gain the support of a swingstate. And yet, if we had a straight election, the massive population centers, or whatever other strategy gives the largest voting blocs, would be all that matters.
Basically, the end result is that it forces candidates to be more moderate precisely because they can’t just pick the largest voting blocs. I think that, when forming a country, this makes sense, because it sure as hell is better to have only 25% happy, 25% unhappy, and 50% okay with the results, than 55% really happy and 45% very unhappy. And this is really the effect of what the EC does, it generally forces candidates to have a broader appeal so, sure the winners may not be quite as happy, but at the same time, the losers aren’t quite as unhappy either.

[Chronos]

I’m a white person, and it’s not in my best interests to vote for a candidate running on a “no taxes for whites” platform, because it’s not in anybody’s best interests to have a racist lunatic idiot in the White House. This is the same reason we don’t have candidates right now running on a platform of “No income tax for residents of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, or New Jersey”.

[Piker]

Reading up on the health care debate, and now this thread. The amount of disdain that some Americans have for majority voting is shocking, especially for a country that prides itself as the Worlds Greatest Democracy. Absolutely shocking.

I expect it in the health care debate, because the now-mainstream fringe right will doublethink on process issues, that is their whole MO. But to suggest that electing a President on straight majority vote would lead to “Tyranny of the Majority” should disgust anyone who wants to live in a, you know, democracy.

And the “no taxes for white people” hypothetical is laughable, by the way. Aren’t whites the majority in the majority of states? How would the Electoral College do anything about that ridiculous scenario?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Piker

Reading up on the health care debate, and now this thread. The amount of disdain that some Americans have for majority voting is shocking, especially for a country that prides itself as the Worlds Greatest Democracy. Absolutely shocking.

People who pride themselves on the United States being the “World’s Greatest Democracy” do not understand the workings of the country they live in. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, designed that way intentionally. Over the years it has grown to resemble a democracy, but it has never actually been one, and the misuse of Democracy as a descriptor over the years has always been a misnomer.

[Piker]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

People who pride themselves on the United States being the “World’s Greatest Democracy” do not understand the workings of the country they live in. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, designed that way intentionally. Over the years it has grown to resemble a democracy, but it has never actually been one, and the misuse of Democracy as a descriptor over the years has always been a misnomer.

Since when is “republic” and “democracy” mutually exclusive?

[Phatlewt]

@Piker

Since when is “republic” and “democracy” mutually exclusive?

Since pedantic people have enjoyed nitpicking to make themselves feel smart. IOW, since forever.

It is more detailed to say the the United States is a Constitutional Republic. That doesn’t mean it’s not a democracy as well.

Democracy is a political government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people. The term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) “rule of the people,” which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) “people” and κράτος (krátos) “power.”

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Piker

Reading up on the health care debate, and now this thread. The amount of disdain that some Americans have for majority voting is shocking, especially for a country that prides itself as the Worlds Greatest Democracy. Absolutely shocking.

I expect it in the health care debate, because the now-mainstream fringe right will doublethink on process issues, that is their whole MO. But to suggest that electing a President on straight majority vote would lead to “Tyranny of the Majority” should disgust anyone who wants to live in a, you know, democracy.

What is absolutely shocking is the lack of education in our Civic classes that lead you to believe this country was ever a democracy in the purest sense (majority rule, end of story).

The Founding Fathers were not clueless and unaware of what they were doing. The Founding Fathers explicitly sought to minimize the violence of faction and the tyranny of the majority. This is the country we have had for 230+ years. It was very intentional and part and parcel of what you seem to think is a pretty great country. Note the last line in the quote below distinguishing a republic from a democracy.

(Bolding mine)

The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.

<snip>

With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

<snip>

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

<snip>

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

SOURCE: The Federalist #10 (James Madison)

[Piker]

Yes, good ol’ Federalist 10. I don’t understand how quoting someone from an era where there was a healthy distrust of the common man has any relevance today, where our society’s underlying values have transformed. Madison failed to predict the rise of parties, but you still feel he is an authority on modern democracy. Right.

For those of us living in the 21st century, we recognize that Federalist 10 is bunk. The ideals of Federalist #10 is one of keeping the status quo, not because it is just, not because it is right, but because it is the status quo. Federalist #10 supports the right of the minority to block the majority, not because the majority is acting in a nefarious way, and not because the majority is trampling on minority rights, but just because there is a minority. Federalist #10 is about stopping action, not because the that action is misguided, or because that action is poorly advised, but simply because it is action.

The ideas of Federalist #10 are pernicious, undemocratic, and have no relevance to the constitutional system that developed fifteen years after ratification, let alone in 2010.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Piker

Yes, good ol’ Federalist 10. I don’t understand how quoting someone from an era where there was a healthy distrust of the common man has any relevance today, where our society’s underlying values have transformed. Madison failed to predict the rise of parties, but you still feel he is an authority on modern democracy. Right.

For those of us living in the 21st century, we recognize that Federalist 10 is bunk. The ideals of Federalist #10 is one of keeping the status quo, not because it is just, not because it is right, but because it is the status quo. Federalist #10 supports the right of the minority to block the majority, not because the majority is acting in a nefarious way, and not because the majority is trampling on minority rights, but just because there is a minority. Federalist #10 is about stopping action, not because the that action is misguided, or because that action is poorly advised, but simply because it is action.

The ideas of Federalist #10 are pernicious, undemocratic, and have no relevance to the constitutional system that developed fifteen years after ratification, let alone in 2010.

What planet are you living on?

The Federalist Papers are THE primary source for interpreting the US Constitution. They are an outline of what the Founding Fathers were thinking and why they did what they did.

Since we still have our Constitution, that they wrote, the Federalist Papers are as relevant today as they were 200+ years ago.

Now, you may personally disagree with them but it remains that they setup our government and you didn’t.

[Piker]

@Whack-a-Mole

What planet are you living on?

The Federalist Papers are THE primary source for interpreting the US Constitution. They are an outline of what the Founding Fathers were thinking and why they did what they did.

Since we still have our Constitution, that they wrote, the Federalist Papers are as relevant today as they were 200+ years ago.

Now, you may personally disagree with them but it remains that they setup our government and you didn’t.

No, they are an outline of what Madison and Hamilton thought could persuade the New York ratification delegates who were sitting on the fence. I missed the Constitutional amendment that made them law, can you point me to it?

They are important because they tell us a lot about what these two important figures were thinking about the Constitution when it was being debated, and because in it they created and eloquently articulated concepts of political philosophy which are astoundingly important, even if I disagree with them.

They are not important to inform us on the principles of democratic government in this day and age. When they distrusted the majority of white men, and all women and people of color to vote, and when they were blind enough to not foresee the rise of political parties (which happened well within their lifetimes), and when they at their very core they despised the idea of popular governance, their ideas are neither compelling nor relevant to today.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Piker

No, they are an outline of what Madison and Hamilton thought could persuade the New York ratification delegates who were sitting on the fence. I missed the Constitutional amendment that made them law, can you point me to it?

You mean the US Constitution? That law that the Federalist Papers describe the thinking that went in to the crafting of that document? If not then please point me to where I said the Federalist Papers are the law themselves (although pretty sure they have been used in SCOTUS rulings when they want to understand what the FFs were thinking when they wrote the constitution so in that respect they have certainly molded even current law).

They are not important to inform us on the principles of democratic government in this day and age. When they distrusted the majority of white men, and all women and people of color to vote, and when they were blind enough to not foresee the rise of political parties (which happened well within their lifetimes), and when they at their very core they despised the idea of popular governance, their ideas are neither compelling nor relevant to today.

They are important because whatever you think the principles of democratic government in this day and age ought to be it remains that the US Constitution is the base upon which this country was built. Barring some amendments that made additions the bulk of that document is intact and underpins this country. As such when Madison speaks against democracy and for a republic (which is what started this line in this thread) it is relevant. Especially since what we got was his republic and not your democracy no matter how much you might wish it was otherwise.

[Piker]

@Whack-a-Mole

They are important because whatever you think the principles of democratic government in this day and age ought to be it remains that the US Constitution is the base upon which this country was built. Barring some amendments that made additions the bulk of that document is intact and underpins this country. As such when Madison speaks against democracy and for a republic (which is what started this line in this thread) it is relevant.

So we are stuck to the conception of democracy of those people who didn’t very much like democracy? Right.

Especially since what we got was his republic and not your democracy no matter how much you might wish it was otherwise.

Yeah, because republic and democracy are mutually exclusive concepts with absolutely no overlap. How ridiculous.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Piker

So we are stuck to the conception of democracy of those people who didn’t very much like democracy? Right.

Well, till you initiate and win a revolution or somehow manage to get the US Constitution rewritten then yeah…you are stuck with the US Constitution as it is written by those guys who were not keen on a pure democracy (or I suppose you could leave the United States).

Yeah, because republic and democracy are mutually exclusive concepts with absolutely no overlap. How ridiculous.

Of course they have similarities. What’s your point?

You earlier seemed to be on the notion that a majority rule was the only way to go. I showed how our FFs disagreed with your notion and instituted a republic in order to protect against a tyranny of the majority which they felt was an unavoidable consequence of a pure democracy.

That is what they thought. Our constitution was written with that in mind. The Federalist #10 tells that story unambiguously.

What are you arguing against (or for)?

[Piker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Well, till you initiate and win a revolution or somehow manage to get the US Constitution rewritten then yeah…you are stuck with the US Constitution as it is written by those guys who were not keen on a pure democracy.

No no no. I’m not saying “we are not stuck with the U.S. Constitution as it is written by the Framers”. God no. I’m saying “we are not stuck to the conception of democracy as conceived by dead white slave owners 220 years ago”.

This is a debate about the desirability of the Electoral College. I find it undesirable, basically, because it is undemocratic, and we live in a democracy. You responded claiming that we don’t live in a democracy because James Madison wrote that it wasn’t. I think that’s hogwash. The Constitution affixes our institutions of government. It didn’t affix our ideals and basic principles.

Our institutions should be changed to reflect that we live in a democracy; that’s my argument. Quoting someone who had a part in drawing up the institution that I’m advocating changing doesn’t really refute that.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Piker

This is a debate about the desirability of the Electoral College. I find it undesirable, basically, because it is undemocratic, and we live in a democracy. You responded claiming that we don’t live in a democracy because James Madison wrote that it wasn’t. I think that’s hogwash. The Constitution affixes our institutions of government. It didn’t affix our ideals and basic principles.

Our institutions should be changed to reflect that we live in a democracy; that’s my argument. Quoting someone who had a part in drawing up the institution that I’m advocating changing doesn’t really refute that.

You find the EC undesirable. That’s fine. You are welcome to your opinion.

James Madison wrote why they crafted a Republic and not a Democracy and a Republic is what we got. No way around that. We do not live in a pure democracy because we have things like the EC and the Senate and check-and-balances rather than outright majority rule. Certainly there is a strong democratic component to all this but it is not majority rule and that’s the end of it stuff.

Thing is you are not really advocating. You are just telling us that you think the EC is bogus and that our institutions should reflect a modern view of the world and not that of 200-year dead slave owners. You have made no case for this though. Just asserted it.

Me? I’m sticking with Madison. He said it better than I ever could have anyway and why re-invent the wheel? I know you slammed the Federalist #10 but again gave no counter-argument so I am content to think Madison has the right of it and not you.

[Piker]

@Whack-a-Mole

He said it better than I ever could have anyway and why re-invent the wheel?

Because the wheel tends to hamper society’s ability to address major social issues? That sounds like a really good idea to re-invent the wheel.

I know you slammed the Federalist #10 but again gave no counter-argument so I am content to think Madison has the right of it and not you.

As I said above: “The ideals of Federalist #10 is one of keeping the status quo, not because it is just, not because it is right, but because it is the status quo. Federalist #10 supports the right of the minority to block the majority, not because the majority is acting in a nefarious way, and not because the majority is trampling on minority rights, but just because there is a minority. Federalist #10 is about stopping action, not because the that action is misguided, or because that action is poorly advised, but simply because it is action.”

The idea that a government should work to frustrates the majority’s purpose, no matter what that purpose is, is in my mind antithetical to a democracy where the electorate should be the ultimate judge of public policy. The Westminister, or Responsible Party Government, System works very well in the commonwealth countries and has not yet led to untolerable tyranny of the masses. Federalist 10 is about fearing change, and institutionalizing that fear of change in government structure. The Electoral College is a (small) part of that system, and should be ditched.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Piker

As I said above: “The ideals of Federalist #10 is one of keeping the status quo, not because it is just, not because it is right, but because it is the status quo. Federalist #10 supports the right of the minority to block the majority, not because the majority is acting in a nefarious way, and not because the majority is trampling on minority rights, but just because there is a minority. Federalist #10 is about stopping action, not because the that action is misguided, or because that action is poorly advised, but simply because it is action.”

The idea that a government should work to frustrates the majority’s purpose, no matter what that purpose is, is in my mind antithetical to a democracy where the electorate should be the ultimate judge of public policy.

Again mostly assertions of what you believe.

Madison laid out his case and I find it persuasive.

You are relying on the notion that majority rule, period, is just the right thing to do and cannot really be argued against. Well, Madison did argue against it and you have not shown how your system addresses his concerns.

You also have not shown this incessant blocking of the majority by the minority (current dysfunctional Senate aside but that is a problem of their own making). How has the majority been blocked at every turn (after all there is nearly always a minority on any given subject)?

[Piker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Again mostly assertions of what you believe.

I mean, I don’t want to go into the metaphysics of argument and principles of rhetoric, but what exactly do you want me to do, generate a mathematic formula that compels my argument?

Let’s try Aristotilian syllogisms!

(1)

Major premise: All government structures that allow a minority to exert power to block the majority, regardless of the substance of the majority’s will, frustrates democratic accountability.

Minor premise: The Senate/filibuster/Electoral College (pick 'em) allows a minority to exert the power to block the majority, regardless of the substance of the majority’s will.

Conclusion: The Senate/filibuster/Electoral College frustrates democratic accountability.

(2)

Major premise: All structures that frustrate democratic accountability are contrary to the values of popular sovereignty.

Minor premise: The Senate/filibuster/Electoral College frustrates democratic accountability.

Conclusion: The Senate/filibuster/Electoral College are contrary to the values of popular sovereignty.

Hope that helps!

You are relying on the notion that majority rule, period, is just the right thing to do and cannot really be argued against. Well, Madison did argue against it and you have not shown how your system addresses his concerns.

His concern is that the majority would trample on minority rights. This was written a couple years before there was a Bill of Rights, and about a hundred years before the idea of judicially-enforced individual rights gained traction in federal courts. I think the courts do a good enough job protecting minority rights.

You also have not shown this incessant blocking of the majority by the minority (current dysfunctional Senate aside but that is a problem of their own making). How has the majority been blocked at every turn (after all there is nearly always a minority on any given subject)?

Well, you admit the filibuster is anti-democratic; while it is of their own making, it is often supported by the Madison’s anti-democratic rhetoric in the Federalist Papers, so I include that here. The fact that the Senate itself is anti-democratic in proportionment is so well known and repeated that I’m not going to repeat it here; let it be said, though, that I’m a Californian, and that people would defend giving me less of a vote than other Americans just because of where I live offends me, and should offend you. The Electoral College, the subject of this thread, in undemocratic in that it denies millions the constructive right to participate in the presidential election because their state just happens, by historical accident, to not have a near 50/50 partisan split. It is for this reason that policies beneficial to Pennsylvanian/Ohio/Michigan/Florida voters, but not beneficial to the nation, are pursued, to the detriment of the majority interest. The separation of the executive and legislative branches frustrates democracy by dispersing political power, and thus political will, and preserving the status quo. I could go on?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Piker

I mean, I don’t want to go into the metaphysics of argument and principles of rhetoric, but what exactly do you want me to do, generate a mathematic formula that compels my argument?

<snip>

His concern is that the majority would trample on minority rights. This was written a couple years before there was a Bill of Rights, and about a hundred years before the idea of judicially-enforced individual rights gained traction in federal courts. I think the courts do a good enough job protecting minority rights.
Well, you admit the filibuster is anti-democratic; while it is of their own making, it is often supported by the Madison’s anti-democratic rhetoric in the Federalist Papers, so I include that here. The fact that the Senate itself is anti-democratic in proportionment is so well known and repeated that I’m not going to repeat it here; let it be said, though, that I’m a Californian, and that people would defend giving me less of a vote than other Americans just because of where I live offends me, and should offend you. The Electoral College, the subject of this thread, in undemocratic in that it denies millions the constructive right to participate in the presidential election because their state just happens, by historical accident, to not have a near 50/50 partisan split. It is for this reason that policies beneficial to Pennsylvanian/Ohio/Michigan/Florida voters, but not beneficial to the nation, are pursued, to the detriment of the majority interest. The separation of the executive and legislative branches frustrates democracy by dispersing political power, and thus political will, and preserving the status quo. I could go on?

You can frame your arguments any way you like.

My point is you are, despite your earlier claim to not want to, arguing for a complete overhaul of the US Constitution. Making it so different as to essentially be an entirely new document. Toss the EC, toss the Senate, toss checks-and-balances and so on.

When advocating for that I believe it takes more than, “Majority rule is just more fair.” As if that goal, in and of itself, is all that is at issue. Perhaps it is more fair but you need to make the case that “more fair” results in a better world (and not just a better world for you but all citizens). Remember any system will be gamed by the participants. “More fair” in business one might argue would be to get rid of things like anti-trust laws. It is not fair to penalize a business that does so well it can dominate an industry right?

The US has one of the oldest governments on the planet today. Certainly it has seen its fits and starts and upsets and setbacks and so on but ultimately has prevailed and been a benchmark of freedom.

If you want to change that wholesale I want details that answer Madison’s worries about an unfettered democracy.