How Democratic Is the American Constitution?

Great Debates
81

I have tried to explain that the rise of National Socialism was not democratic. Murder and torture are not democratic methods. The phrase “mature democracy” comes from my understanding of what allowed such an extreme ideology to rule Germany. It was due to economic privation and the lack of a democratic tradition. This view is hardly news to anyone familiar with the history. There are plenty of folks here on the SDMB who will argue it.

Ah, my mistake. I disagree with that definition. At least, I disagree that that is the only definition for the term.

Again I disagree. To me if a minority vetos an attempt by the majority to outlaw abortion then the government is following a policy of tolerating abortion. I have little desire to dispute the semantics of it. The problem for me is that it is the minority that gets its way.

You are talking about these things. I would be happy if you would accept what seems to me the rather obvious concept that failing to reach a decision is itself a decision. You have decided to do nothing.

Legislators are people but they aren’t “the people”. They are the representatives of the people. At least, that’s how I and everyone I have ever met until now uses the terms.

I have pointed to some undemocratic features of our constitution I feel are unjustified. The rest of you have disagreed. It isn’t incumbant upon me to show that things would be better if these features were eliminated. Rather it is incumbant upon y’all to show that things would be worse or to justify them in another matter. Don’t try to shift the burden of proof.

** Ah, my mistake again. As for the poll, I don’t remember much about it. They did ask more questions and I seem to recall that those seemed to be leading questions. As I stated when I posted it I don’t believe the poll.

The correction in question is the one where you mistakenly claimed that the people have voted upon the Constitution. As I have said the only plebiscite on the matter was in Rhode Island in 1788. **

Strawman. No one has claimed that the Framers set up hereditary government. Instead the claim is that they set up a government which benefited their class. That some of their descendants and indeed some of the Framers themselves went broke does nothing to dispute the claim.

You are forgetting the Harrisons and the Roosevelts. Nor is Bush Sr the only president Junior is descended from.

Excellent. **

“Democracy” is a very wide term. In at least one sense of the word America is a democracy. Of course, it is also a republic.

I have tried to explain that I feel the government is tyrannical because it denies everyone an equal say in whether it shall be our government or not.

I’m OK with such laws so long as they are democratically enacted.

The difference for me is that the Constitution is not democratically enacted.

I disagree. To me it seems that allowing the minority to control the rules of the game does equate to minority rule. I don’t much care to argue the terminology however. If you don’t want to call that “ruling” then fine. A rose by any other name… Again for me the problem is that the minority gets its way at the expense of the majority.

How is any state less sovereign without the Senate? It seems to me that each state still has the same powers it did before the only difference being a change in how its citizens are represented in the central government. The state remains unchanged.

My main objection to the Senate is that their districts aren’t proportional. Nor do I see any need to represent the people in more than one house.

The states aren’t represented in the House. Nor are they any longer in the Senate since Senators are now popularly elected. Both houses of Congress represent people. But some are overrepresented at the expense of the rest. If some get three votes to everyone else’s one vote, that isn’t as representative as “One person, one vote.”

And yet the president isn’t elected by the nation as a whole.

No they aren’t. No one is guaranteed a say. Only those voters which are in the majority ( or plurality ) in their state have any effect upon the Electoral College. If you are not in the majority in your state you might as well just stay home.

The EC does in fact give some voters more power than they would have in a direct election but they are taking that power from other voters. I’d rather everyone had the same power.

** As I have tried to make clear my objection is to the basis of some judicial rulings. If the constitutions and laws are democratically enacted ( or in the case of common law can be altered by statute ) then I have no problem with judicial review. As for lifetime appointment, I hardly see how appointment for a definite term would lead to lynchings. Or how would it put judges at the mercy of “momentary popular whim”.

82

You have it exactly backwards. You’re proposing changes to the existing system; the onus is on you to prove these changes are for the better, and I can’t say that you have.

Your use of the word “undemocratic” doesn’t constitute proof, by the way. In fact, you seem to be arguing for an extreme form of democracy that takes away the benefits of responsible government and gives little or nothing of tangible value in return.

And every time you do so, we chuckle at your improbably elastic definition of “tyrannical”.

83

Yes, and no one has disagreed significantly. Especially since the majority of Germans never voted them into power. But you have also said that a mature democracy would never have let that happen. However, you have not offered any mechanism, any action, any method whatsoever, that a democracy would use to prevent such a thing. If the people never put the question to a vote, how can you say that the majority would have voted against the Nazis? They did garner some votes.

OK, but you can’t simply say you disagree and then not even offer an alternative. Can you point to a single definition which does not involve force?

Right, but only in a limited sense. The minority is not able to propose and pass legislation. It can only block certain types of proposals. And if the majority is large enough (that is the will of the people is strong enough) the minority cannot even block these.

No, we both are. You raised objections to the super majorities necessary to ammend the constitution or over ride a veto. I am explaining that such things are not undemocratic.

Well, then get ready to be happy. Of course I agree with this. However, this does not mean what you think it means. Tyranny of a minority implies that the minority can force the majority to do what the minority wants. But in the case of decisions which require a supre majority, the minority can only prevent the majority from doing something. The minority cannot force new rules on the majority.

Exactly. that is why I included the phrase “representitives of the people” twice in my post. I was reminding you that you said you accept representative government as a form of democracy. Are you backing away from that now?

Well, I don’t think I did say that the people voted on the constitution. Re reading my post, however, it seems I was ambiguous.

This is my paragraph :

I was not trying to say that there have been popular votes on the Constitution. I was saying that the people had ammended the Constitution several times in our history. The point being that since a convention has never been called the people have never seen a need for widespread changes to the Constititution. Unless you wish to argue that there is some impediment to proposing such a convention, or you have an example where it was proposed, supported by the majority, but rejected by the minority, then your assertion that the constition is imposed is simply silly. Its like saying that the Michigan constitution is imposed on you because you can only vote on it every 16 years.

No, but you did assert that the system enforces elite status for the elite. However, you have not shown that there has been an elite that benifitted from this system. I’m not aware of any super majority higher than 3/4ths that are required to make as many changes as you want. Have the elite in this country ever been more than 25%? I certainly don’t think so. I am certainly not elite, but I find that I am in the top 10% or so of the population.

Yes, but you have failed to demonstrate that you understand the terms well enough to make this claim. Everyone has a say in proposing changes to the Constitution. Everyone has a say in whether or not those changes are accepted. The say is uneven because we are not a homogeneous nation. We are a collection of Soverign States. I have more say in how my state government is run than you do because you are not a citizen of my state.

But only for your narrow definition of democratically of 50% + 1.

I don’t particularly want to argue semantics either. But when you use words those words have meanings. Personally, I think that warbler mangroves should never be grangled with nukerily plankinations.

This seems obvious. Without representation of the states, largely populated states could force legislation on them without their consent. For instance, what if a couple states representing the majority of the population decided that they were the only ones alowed to send voting representitives. This sort of change could happen under the current system, but it would require a super majority of states.

That’s because you fail to recognize that there are distinctions between different formulations of “the people”. You have decided that simple majority is the one and only way to measure it and all of your objections are biased by that.
The Senate allows distinct political / geographical groups to have self determined governments. People in Arizona are free (within limited restrictions) to operate thier government as they see fit without worring that a simple majority of the American people will take that right away. We can be free to act as we please without worring about what those crazies in California and NewYork are doing. Meanwhile, we are not empowered to enofrce our way of life on them.

There are certainly other reasonable ways to divide the American people. There was a book written many years ago titled something like “The seven nations of north america”. The author tried to show that North America could be divided into seven nations with appropriate benifits for everyone. Certainly one of these methods would be to do away with states all together, and simply elect a national government through nation wide popular elections.

However, it is a long way from suggesting a new way to parce political power to suggesting that the current system is a “steaming pile fo shit”, or “tyrannical”.

You seem to confuse different meanings of the phrase “the people”. People in Idaho exist and are distinguishable from people in Colorado. Senators are popularly elected within their state. That is, they represent the people of their state. Much like Congressmen represent the people of thier district.

You are using some odd definiton for elected aren’t you? Or is it nation? Certainly not President? (although I might give you another Perverted Pendant if it is).

OK, but this is true with any democratically decided decision. If you are on the loosing side, you may as well stay home, as you say. Votes are counted for President by district and state. By and large, the popular candidate is elected. As I suggested there are certainly different ways to district the population. But it can certainly be demonstrated that a fully national election is worse for everyone. Let’s not go into arguing the 2000 election again. I did say “by and large”.

No, you misunderstood the linked article. Everyone has more power in a districted election (unless the vote is ridiculously close) than they would have in an undistricted election. I don’t think that anyone is losing power.

Note I am using power in the sense mentioned in the article. It is a measure of the likelyhood that a particular voter will decide an election. It is not the standard use of voter power, but not an unreasonable one either.

84

** I overstated the case. “Never” is too strong. There are no guarantees. It is unlikely that in a state with a strong democratic tradition that violent undemocratic actions would be tolerated. The mechanism for preventing such lawbreaking is law enforcement.

It’s not the “force” that I have a problem with but rather the part about “initiation”. If I were to ignore the government and just set up my own democracy at some point men with guns will come along to enforce the laws of the government I consider illegitimate. I don’t know if you would consider that an initiation of force or not. I have met some libertarian types with what seem to me to be odd ideas about what constitutes such initiation.

But it’s the minority which controls which types of proposals are privileged against majority rule so they are in control unless opposed by a supermajority.

They can’t impose new rules but they can retain old ones even if the majority finds them tyrannical.

Certainly not.

First of all, if an institution is undemocratic then it is undemocratic whether it has ever been challenged by a majority or not. Second, since the Constitution has no mechanism for recording popular disagreement it is difficult to find evidence of popular disagreement with the Constitution. If, from time to time, we had a chance to vote against certain features of the Constitution then I have no doubt that I would be able to find the clear examples you wish. But then I wouldn’t have any reason to complain on that score now would I? As it is I am forced to rely upon polling numbers. The one I use is the Electoral College. Ever since polling on the issue began back in the '50s a majority have favored its aboltion. Yet it remains.

As for my assertion that the Constitution has been imposed upon us, of course it has. Have you ever voted on it? No. Have you ever voted for a representative who has voted on it? No. Is there anyone alive that has ever done any of these things? I guess there are some elderly folks in Alaska and Hawaii but beyond that, no. So it has been imposed upon us living Americans by dead Americans. It is different than voting on the Michigan constitution every sixteen years because we can presume that when that time period has expired there will still be a significant majority of the polity that voted on the question the last time around.

I don’t recall saying this. Can you cite your claim? What I do recall saying is that “dividing governmental control and requiring supermajorities makes it more difficult to enact change. That’s good if you are a member of the landowning, slaveowning, and powerholding elite. It makes it easier for you or your descendants to maintain your elite status.” Not the same thing. **

I have no problem with that. My problem is that some citizens have more say in how the United States are run than others.

My defintion of democratic is narrow enough to exclude the votes of dead people. Of that at least I am guilty.

It seems obvious because you haven’t thought it through. The federal government can already force legislation on a dissenting state. Thus here would be no change in the power of any state. The Senate doesn’t preserve self determination for the states. All it does is make it harder to make changes to what self determination they already have. Without the Senate a state is still a state.

You seem to confuse the state with the people in it. “Vermont” is not the same as “Vermonters”.
Can I fairly call you a statist? :wink:

What are you talking about? The president isn’t elected by the nation as a whole. He is elected by the electoral college, that is- 538 people who represent the majority in each state and the federal district.

Sure, but in regular election losing votes aren’t decided until all the votes are counted. In our wacky presidential elections the minority votes are discarded before the real vote is cast in the college so that, as happened with Al Gore, the “winner” can have enough votes discarded in states where he didn’t carry a majority or plurality to end up a loser.

Refering back to what I was saying above, how can you have any evidence of this? We have never held a popular vote so we can’t look at voting totals under our current system to determine how any presidential election would have turned out if we did. For all we know the truly popular candidate has never won the White House. ( Though it is hard to imagine that it would have affected enough votes to change the outcome in some of the landslides. ) The same goes for Al Gore. We don’t know that he would have gotten more votes than George Bush in 2000 if we had held a popular vote. People voted within the system and so their votes are based upon those electoral assumptions. You can’t automatically apply those numbers to hypotheticals outside that system. Change the system and you change the assumptions which is bound to change some of the votes.

I was talking about the regular kind but you are right that I don’t fully understand Natapoff’s concept of voting power. I don’t get where he thinks this extra power is coming from. All of the power in a direct election is already in the hands of the voters. It seems to me that if some voters get more then other voters necessarily have less. I suspect that Natapoff is just pulling this extra power out of his ass and using complex math to disguise it. But then I am not a mathematician. I do know how to read though and thus can say that he ( or Hively or both ) very carefully doesn’t say that everyone has an equal amount of power under the EC though the article is misleading enough to give that impression. They are demagoging the issue and that’s why I was disappointed to see the link. The SDMB is about fighting ignorance not spreading it.

I find it completely unreasonable. If there were a national lottery with the winner naming the president then according to Natapoff we would all have equal voting power. Poppycock! Elections aren’t supposed to be a crapshoot. You don’t need dice in an election. You need ballots.

85

OK, 1 more long one and then I think we can concentrate on the more productive issues.

Fari enough. I was only concerned that you were proposing utopian version of “democracy”.

I agree that some Libertarians have odd definitions of this concept. So do other political parties. I was only using the term to note that force should only be used as a retaliation to the use of force. It can be a little complicated when discussing it generally, but when discussing tyranny as opposed to representitive government the primary point is that the government submits its use of force to the voice of the people.

Your second sentence contradicts (partly) your first. Being able to prevent changes to a system is not the same as controlling that system. In the context of Constitutional ammendments, it simply means that changes have to be widely popular before they are accepted. It is very far indeed from tyranny or imposition.

But you see, you are wrong. Ammendments get proposed in Congress and state legislators all the time. Every time you vote for a Congressman, Senator, or State legislator you vote for someone with the power to propose and vote on other’s proposed ammendments. As I said, unless you are going to say that none of these bodies are representitive of teh people’s will, then you will have to agree that the people have indeed voted on many amendments through those representitives.

You see, you are stuck on national plebicites. You have convinced yourself that without a national election on which people have directly voted for a part of the whole of the Contitution, then it has been imposed on us. This is patently untrue. Our representitives vote on changes all the time. Several each year. I can’t find the link right now, but a couple weeks ago someone posted a link which showed the proposed ammendments (only the ones in Congress if I recall) from the last couple years. There were something like 5-7 each year. Unless I am quite mistaken, they were all proposed and voted on by the accepted procedures. That they never made it to a national plebicite (even one of public opinion) is a measure of the popularity of them. The point being that we are constantly proposing changes to the Constituion. At any time one or many of those changes could be accepted into law. We don’t hear about them, because they are not that unique an occurance. They are certain not non existent. And they are certainly not imposed or tyrannical.

I accused you of saying that “the system enforces elite status for the elite.” I was paraphrasing. I used enforced while you used easier to maintian. Perhaps you can illuminate me as to the difference.

Right. But you completely mis the reasons why this is so. The United States is not a simple voting district. It is a collection of soverign states. The people of each state wish to maintain a certain level of soverignty. Under the Contstitution, this is done by granting political power to the states as states in the form of the senate and to a lesser extent the Ellectoral college.

Think of it this way. If a group of countries entered into a close relationship they might devise a group which meets to decide issues facing the group. Decisions within this body might be decided soley on a one country one vote basis. Or it might be decided based on the population of the various countries. It might even be decided based on some other factors like the amount of monetary and military support the member states had bestowed on the group. The point being that as long as the governments of the member countries are representitive, and the member countries have a say in proposing changes to the agreement, the people of the various countries cannot say that the system is tyrannical. They cannot say that the agreement is imposed on them without their consent.

I thought your whole objection to the senate was based on a missaportionment of power. Are you now saying that power would be the same with it as without it?

Exactly. All it does is make it harder to reduce the amount of self determination they have without their consent. Not impossible, just harder. In that sense it preserves self determination.

Yes. 538 people who are legally required to vote as they were directed by the people of their state.

I ignored the next couple of paragraphs because I don’t think they add to the main point that the ellectoral college does not reduce the power of the people to elect a president.

It exists as a result of counting votes differently than in a single large election. The idea is that if 9 people vote in 1 election then there is a certain chance that an individual voter will swing the election. If they vote in 3 seperate “districts” then the chance changes. If you assume that voters are usually biased for one candidate or the other, then the chances change again. What Natapoff showed (I must admit at this point I am not a mathamatician, and I have not read his published paper. The Discover article I linked to is a little difficult to read because it jumps around the subject, but it does contain a good description of the idea.) is that indificual voters have more of a chance to swing the election in districted elections unless you assume a very close to 50 50 likelyhood for each candidate to win.

Your right that the article did not claim that the Ellectoral College grants equal power by this measure to all citezens. But it does grant more power to each citezen than they would have in a single national ellection. Again, with the exception of a ridiculously close election, in which case we actually have less power. What his analysis shows is that we would have to redistrict every national election to get this power benifit and distribute it evenly. In the abcense of a good way to do this, districting by the states is a good approximation. Remember that the districts used for presidential elections are very close to the congressional districts used in the House of Representitives. In addition, however, each state gets 2 extra Electors. This is why most presidential elections actually follow the popular vote (which we certainly do measure BTW).

Having summarized all that, I’d like to address a couple more things you posted.

But this is only the case if all else is held static. If we have a national election one year with one man one vote, and then we allow blonde people to have two votes next year, then certainly we have taken power from some and given it to others. But if we district the election this might not be the case. In fact, as Natapoff showed, unless the election is very very close, this is not in fact the case.

Quite so. Which is why I might have to ask you to support your accusation of demagoging. The article is simply a description of a mathematical theory proposed as a measure of the amount of political power each citizen gets in various types of elections.

No, No, you’ve misunderstood the use of statistics in the article. All he is saying is that when you look at a particular voter in a particular election you can assign a probability that his vote will be the deciding vote. If you have 3 voters, then the other 2 have to vote for different candidates for our voter in question to have the deciding vote. The chances of this can be calculated and can represent the power that each voter had in that election. Note that it takes into account your one man one vote criteria as well. If one of the other voters has extra votes, then it certainly will change the likely hood that our voter in question will decide things. Nothing like random chance is implied. Nothing likde dice are used.

The whole point of this is that measuring the population and then measuring which candidate they voted for is one way to count an election. Its just not the only way. In fact, it may not be the best way in most circumstances.

This is why I asked earlier if you knew of any disatisfaction with the Constitution that was not based on a simple misunderstanding of it. I think most people agree with you concernign the Ellectoral College. I think, however, that this is evidence of a profound misunderstanding of our system.

86

I’ve been skimming through the Constutition (yes, I have no life) and “voter” is never firmly defined. All it says is that anyone eligible to vote in a state election for the largest state body (typically the state legislature, I guess) can vote in a federal election. The only restrictions are imposed by amendments that say the states can’t exclude voters on the basis of race, gender, age (after 18), land ownership, unpaid poll taxes etc.

My point is that if the Presidential election was converted to a straight PV, I can imagine a state being tempted to lower the voting age to 16, or even 14, or remove existing restrictions for convicted felons, resident aliens, or doing just about anything to boost their overall voting numbers, including (possibly) making voting mandatory.

Could it happen? Probably not, but unintended consequences follow any attempt to ‘fix’ politics.

87

I think that forcing people to live under a widely unpopular but not quite widely unpopular enough system of government is tyranny. Governments should be based upon the people not imposed upon them. **

This is not the same thing as approving the Constitution itself. A majority can dissapprove but be powerless to change it.

The difference is in those questions you were asking about specific families. I claimed maintaining the status quo benefits elites not that it guarantees they will maintain that status.

Do you agree that America is one nation?

You seem to have confused the issue. The powers of the central government and of the states does not change whether or not there is a Senate. But how the power of the central government is controlled certainly does. To attempt to clarify, your personal share of the power of the federal government would change if the Senate were abolished but that would not affect the authority of your state.

You are ignoring the possibility that federal laws can give more self determination to the states and that abolishing the Senate could make that easier. In any case, the manner in which the federal power is controlled doesn’t change the allocation of state power. It could be as you say that abolishing the Senate would lead to less state control. Or not. But the act itself does not affect the level of state authority.

This supports the point it purports to contradict. The president isn’t elected by the nation as a whole but rather by the nation as a set of districts. Or rather, that’s what it would be if you were right that electors had to vote for the candidate they are pledged to. In fact only 29 states and DC have “faithless elector laws”. Even for those which do there is some question of the constitutionality of those laws and also a practical difficulty. Even if a state is allowed to punish someone for casting the wrong vote that doesn’t change the vote.

I have read the article. Allow me to try to explain my objection again. If 100 voters have 100% of the voting power in an election then if even one of them gains more than 1% then there are only 2 possible explanations. Either that extra power came from another voter or voters or there is more than 100 percent. This is why I suspect Natapoff is pulling a fast one. **

We record the individual votes which are cast, yes. And Al Gore did recieve more individual votes than George Bush. But that does not mean that if we had held a direct election Al Gore still would have gotten the most votes. Individuals make their decision within the electoral system so once you remove that context the decision is meaningless. A vote could be based upon the chances of being in the majority within that state or a person can decide not to show up at all because they know they have no chance of affecting the outcome of the election within their state. So we can’t look at the raw numbers of recorded individual votes and claim that the EC produces the more popular winner in almost every election. As I have said, for all we know the EC has never done so.

All of that assumes that political parties select the same standard bearers if there were no electoral college which isn’t an easy assumption to swallow. Parties make their choice in part upon who they think can win which gives candidates in some locations an edge over others. This is reflected today in the presidential trend toward Southern Democrats and Californian Republicans. Earlier in our history New York and Ohio were the major battleground states. From 1868-1908 every single president either lived or was born in one of those 2 states.

It’s rarely that simple. Take this sentence: “Not long before Natapoff’s epiphany, Congress had teetered on the verge of wrecking the electoral college, an institution that has no equal anywhere in the world.” Hively isn’t describing Natapoff’s work, he is pimping it. The article is the same as the Federalist Papers. It isn’t clarification, it’s propaganda. It’s written to gain support. That doesn’t make it demagoguery though. But this paragraph does:
“Why worry how easily one vote can turn an election, so long as each voter has equal power? One person, one vote–that’s all the math anyone needs to know in a simple, direct election. Natapoff agrees that voters should have equal power. “The idea,” he says, “is to give every voter the largest equal share of national voting power possible.” Here’s a classic example of equal voting power: under a tyranny, everyone’s power is equal to zero. Clearly, equality alone is not enough. In a democracy, individuals become less vulnerable to tyranny as their voting power increases.”

If Natapoff really does agree that voters should have equal power then why the hell is he pushing the EC? While you wisely haven’t fallen for this trick I have seen others confused into believing that our votes really are all equal under the EC. Then there is the bait and switch of electoral power. Under tyranny everyone’s voting power is zero because there aren’t any elections or because the elections don’t decide anything. Here Natapoff refers to the real power of elections. Elections are powerful due not to any individuals share of the power but because the outcome has an effect on the real world. The more powerful the effect the more powerful the election. Electing a president creates a powerful election. Electing an assistant dog catcher doesn’t no matter how large any individual’s share of the voting power becomes. This is how individuals become less vulnerable to tyranny via elections: because the elections themselves become more powerful. But the author conceals this fact by describing it using the same terminology of “voting power” it uses to mean something entirely different throughout the rest of the article. Deliberate deception is the very essence of demagogery.

Methinks you merely mislike the implications. Natapoff’s definition of voting power is the probability that an individual’s vote will turn the election. If there were a national lottery where everyone had an equal chance to be the one person to decide the election then every individual would have an equal probability for their vote to turn the election. Thus in Natapoffia everyone would have an equal vote. I’d rather not live there though. Would you?

Physician heal thyself.

88

I think we are narowing in on the problem, so I am going to concentrate on the primary mistep you took.

Again, you misunderstadn a couple things. Your assumption is that 100 voters have a fixed amount of power regardless of the way that the election is counted. This is misguided. The point is that in an election the power possesed by the voters can be described as their ability to influence the candidates. If a particular group is disenfranchised, then no candidate will listen to them, for instance. But this is only a description. To measure how much power voters have you need a model. One model is the chance that a particular voter will decide the election. That his vote will decide. Not that he will be crowned as the election’s decider.

IOW individual voter’s power can be measured as the chance that the rest of the electorate will deadlock. The particular voter who casts the deciding vote could e any of them.

Paraphrasing from the article:

Assume: a simple 2 candidate election and an equal chances that a voter will vote for a particular candidate.

The chance that any given voter will decide the election is the same as the chance that the other 2 will deadlock (50%). As the number of voters increase, this chance decreases. But it is also effected by the way that votes are counted. If we increase the number of voters to 9, then the chance for deadlock decided by an individual is 27.3%. If we divide the vote into 3 districts of 3 voters each, then you have to decide your district’s election (50%) and the other 2 districts have to deadlock (another 50% chance). Your chance of deciding the election is then 25%. A slight decrease in your power. That is, in this model, districts reduce boter power slightly.

However, what Natapoff proposed is that the model of a 50-50 chance that a voter will vote for each candidate is misleading. In any real election one candidate is always leading in the polls. What his model shows is that if we alter this assumption, then the power relationship between districted and non districted elections reverses at a certain prefference. He found that the reduction of power due to increased voters is less than that for favored candidates.

The interesting part of all of this is that as the number of voters increases, the closeness of the race needed to grant a direct election more power than a districted one gets closer and closer to 50-50. In an election with millions of voters, the election would have to be within many decimal places of 50-50 to make the direct election better. This is virtually impossible. Therefore, in a real election, with many voters, districts grant more power to the voters.

There are several other ways to see this intuitavely hinted at in the article. But I think it is more important to stick with the science in here.

89

And now for the tit for tat. :smiley:

No, not powerless. Just not all powerfull.

Right. If the institution of government is helping elites to maintain their status, and has done so fromthe begining, shouldn’t we be able to trace several elite families from the begining? Shouldn’t we be able to demonstrate that they would no longer be elite except for protections granted by the Constitution?

No. Not in the sense that Japan, or Sweden is, for instance. The United States of America is certainly a single country, but it is made up of semi autonomous states. This is something altogether different.

No, you have confused the issue. I did not say “powers” as in the list of things each entity can legislate. I said power as in the amount of influence each state has in the decisions that the federal government takes.

I’m going to ignore your hand waving suggesting that we cannot know what people would have voted for if the election method was different. It amounts to suggesting that since we cannot change history we know nothing. The point I was trying to make, and which you know very well, is that by far the winner of a presidential election is almost always the winner of the popular vote. It may be true that people would have voted differently, but they did vote, and the vote can be taken as evidence of a popular preference.

This is actually one of the strongest reasons to keep the EC. IT forces candidates to apeal to a much larger proportion of the population than they might otherwise have to.

[QUOTE]
**Take this sentence: “Not long before Natapoff’s epiphany, Congress had teetered on the verge of wrecking the electoral college, an institution that has no equal anywhere in the world.” Hively isn’t describing Natapoff’s work, he is pimping it. **[/QUTOE]Dude. Settle down withe the hyperbole. “Pimping, Tyranny, imposition” you tend to go a little overboard. Hively certainly agrees that Natapoff has discovered something unique and important. But contained in the article is a good explanation of the theory.

Now who is pimpiing. The Federalist papers are arguments by proponents to opponents of the Constitution. As such they certainly are more than propaganda.

Because he is not pushing blind equality. That is what you are proposing. Natapoff is proposing that districts give voters more power than direct elections. At least in certain cases.

Yes, because individuals have no influence on decisions being taken as I explained above.

Nope. You missed it again. He is not talking about the power of elections as if they were a thing to have power. He is talking about the power exercised by electors in the form of an election.

Your obtuseness in this regard is odd. He is most certainly not using “votint power” in a different sense. He uses it in your quote exactly like he uses it every where else to mean how much influence that individual voters have over decisions.

As I explained in the last post, this is not even close. he probability that a single voter decides the election is different than the probability that the election was decided on a single vote. This probability is a reasonable measure of individual voter power. The greater chance that a single vote will decide an election the more influence all voters will have over the candidates of that election.

This is in response to my suggestion that much misunderstanding of the EC has lead to its unpopularity. Are you suggesting that most people in the US understand the constitution? You might benifit from taking this advice yourself. Try finding some proponents of the EC and understanding their arguments.

90

I know I should stop, but I couldn’t help thinking about this all through dinner.

This is overly simplistic, and not correct besides. Removing all restrictions to a national election, that is, allowing them to pass any resolution at any time would not decrease tendencies toward tyranny, it would increase it.

I know you’ve said that Athens was not a true democracy because so many people were denied the vote. But consider that portion of the population which was not denied the vote. Many of them suffered tyranny as well. Socrates was not killed because he wasn’t allowed to apeal to the women or slaves of society. He was killed because the majority found his philosphy unpopular. His only right was to a trial by this majority. This is the system you are proposing for all of us.

If you want, I’ll back off for a bit and let you respond to some of the other posters.

91

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I don’t believe that the amount of power is fixed between the voters. Sure you can count the election in different ways to give different voters more or less voting power. My contention is that the total power can not be changed. The voters collectively already have all of the power. If you think this is wrong then please explain where any extra power can possibly come from. All of what you have posted and quoted from the article deals only with deciding the election. It doesn’t offer any source of extra power.

Yes, powerless. The majority doesn’t have the power to change some parts of the Constitution nor can it change any of it just a little. The majority literally has no power at all to amend the Constitution. It is powerless. Only certain supermajorities can push through amendments.

I imagine we could. Feel free if you wish. I consider my point made long ago when I noted that perserving the status quo benefited the elites. That seems self evident to me.

No one is disputing that the states are semiautomous units. Are you really maintaining that America is a country but not a nation?

Indeed you did but that is part of your confusion. The point of contention is the degree of sovereignty of the states so the pertinent “powers” are the list of things a state can legislate not the amount of influence each state has in the decisions that the federal government takes.

** I don’t know why you are having so much difficulty with understanding the fact that facts can’t be removed from their context. Let me try a sports metaphor. Wilt Chamerlain once scored 100 points in an NBA game. That doesn’t mean that on the same day he could have scored 100 points in a National Football League game. When you change the rules you change the game.

I did understand your point I was just pointing out the limitations of it. The individual vote totals are only evidence of support within that electoral system. They don’t and can’t show that the winner of the real election is nearly always the same man that would have won if there were no electoral college.

Nonsense. The quote in question ( which alludes to the fact that the EC predisposes parties to select candidates from certain geographical locations ) shows that the EC predisposes parties to select candidates from certain geographical locations. A politician that polls 55% in his home state of California but only 15% in every other state is a more viable candidate for the Republican nomination than one who polls 35% in every state because if the Repubs can add Cali’s electoral votes to their tally they are certain to win the White House unless by some miracle the Dems manage to take all of the battleground states.

I make no pretense of disinterestedness. When I feel strongly I use strong terms to convey that feeling. If you feel a term is inaccurate then by all means, feel free to dispute it.

Whatever else they amount to the essays are also propaganda.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Before you were describing my attempt to explain the context of facts as “hand waving” and now you are going beyond overboard to support Natapoff’s theory. My descriptions, while strongly worded, have the virtue at least of being accurate. If you believe that my position amounts to “pushing blind equality” then you can state your opinion clearly rather than make the incorrect assertion that I actually did such a thing.

As for Natapoff, he agrees people should have equal votes or he supports the EC. These are contradictory positions unless he can show that votes are equal under the EC, which we agree they are not.

I haven’t missed it. The article has neatly substituted the power of elections for the “voting power” it goes on about. You seem to have been taken in by this trick. ( Notice how I clarified the remark concerning your position. )

Um, I took the definition straight from the article. "When Natapoff computes voting power–the probability that one vote will turn the election…" If everyone filled out a ballot and then a single vote was drawn to pick the winner then according to Natapoff’s definition we would all have equal voting power. I suggest you try to come to terms with this fact since disputing it is fruitless. His definition doesn’t seem so reasonable in that light now does it?

No, I was suggesting that you are the one that doesn’t understand the electoral college.

The quote concerns elections not referendums. I am saying that the people are insulated from tyranny by their ability to elect their leaders. If they can’t elect the people who run the country then it doesn’t matter how much individual power they have in the meaningless show elections.

No thanks. I’ve responded to every post I think requires and merits a response. I’m all caught up.

92

Right. And this is your mistake. The amount of power is not fixed by the office under contention. Each voter has the ability to influence the candidates before during and after the campaign. How much influence he has will be directly related to the chance that his vote will decide the election. That is, how much the candidate needs his support. In a straight election voters have a chance to decide the elction. Therefore a certain amount of influence on the candidates. Therefore a certain amount of power. This amount of power changes if you change the method of counting votes. The amount of influence (and thus the amount of power) for everyone may indeed go up if you simply count the votes differently.

Of which, the majorities definately would be a part. Therefore not powerless. Simply not all powerfull.

I’m not sure anything is self evident. If you contend that the constitution maintains the status quo and that this maintains elites, then you should have some evidence that elites have been maintained. If not, it is time to question your assumptions.

Yes. Are you claiming that there are “Americans” in the exact same sense that there are “Japanese”?

Right. But the people do elect their leaders. In general, however, you are proposing more than changes to the voting procedure. You are proposing that everything be up for grabs in nation popular elections.

Fair enough. I didn’t want to shout out any of the other posters. I may have waited a couple pages to long to make the offer. There were certainly some good posts a page or so back. So, let me make the offer permanent. I leave it up to you. If you want to take some time and address some of the objections posted by others simply say so and I can give you a couple days or whatever.

93

You are only talking about the power to elect an official. That’s not extra power. The voters already have the power to elect. All of it. By definition there can’t be more than 100% of the voting power in an election. If you think there is more then please point to it.

As I have said you are free to look for evidence if you wish. My point is based upon logic. Since elites are the ones who have benefited the most from the current system making it difficult to change obviously is to their benefit.

I’m not sure which exact same sense you mean. There is a nation of Americans and there is a nation of Nipponese. In that sense they are the same.

Yes, the federal government can limit the powers of the states. They can with or without a Senate. That fact itself doesn’t change the powers of the states. Mrs 2sense could get disgusted that I am idling away my time on the computer instead of paying attention to her and come up here and slit my throat but that possibility doesn’t alter my status as a living person. Similarly a potential in the federal government doesn’t change the current level of state sovereignty.

** Perhaps Wilt would not have scored 100 points in an NFL game? Do you have the faintest idea what the single game NFL points record might be? As I have pointed out the EC affects who parties choose to run for president. For my part I would consider replacing one or more major candidates a drastic change.

Of course but they need to be qualified. Such as: assuming that the same 2 major candidates were running and given his decided advantage in individual votes even if there were no electoral college Nixon almost certainly would still have beaten McGovern in 1972.

I agree that the EC doesn’t simply impose presidents upon the US. Still, it limits our choices and for no good reason I have ever seen. What do you mean that there are no alternatives? **

This does nothing to support your assertion that “IT forces candidates to apeal to a much larger proportion of the population than they might otherwise have to.” Have you abandoned that claim?

Sorry, no. Remember we are talking about seeking a nomination and whoever gets the nod is bound to see his numbers go up for the general election. A Republican sure to take Cali but that was only polling 2% in every other state is still a better candidate for the general election than one who polls 35% in all other states because, as I said, if the Repubs can take Cali along with the other states that are bound to go their way they are almost certain to win. Anyone seeking the nomination of either party that is polls 70% in the 5 most populous states not only has a lock on the nomination but is a shoo in in the general election as well since even if the other party takes all of the rest of the battleground states ( Florida being one ) they still lose.

I support democracy, yes. But you are missing the fact that in the OP I acknowledged that I can accept practical limitations upon it. An acknowledgement, I might add, that I have been forced to refer to more than once since. I favor equality but not “blind equality”.

What third choice? Either he supports equality or he does not. He isn’t claiming the EC makes us not just equal but more than equal. It makes us unequal as you admit whatever its other alleged benefits.

I didn’t invent the power of elections. It’s simply how I am describing their effect. As I have explained an election which elects the president is more powerful than one that elects a minory functionary. This is what makes elections powerful, that they have substantial effects on how we are governed. The article alludes to this by saying that “In a democracy, individuals become less vulnerable to tyranny as their voting power increases.” yet is using the term “voting power” which, as you say, otherwise invariably refers to something else.

Here is the line in question: “You seem to have been taken in by this trick.” I qualified it by stating that you seem to have been taken in rather than flatly stating that you have been taken in. This is a more accurate assertion because it is true even if it turns out that you weren’t taken in. You still seemed that way to me. Contrast this with your flat declaration that I favor blind equality which turns out to be false. **

I am using the exact words from the article in the exact way they are used there. The difference is that I am applying them to a very odd situation: where the “election” is determined by lottery. That his definition fits that scheme is not the result of my twisting his words but rather evidence that his definition is twisted.

94

2sense, let me ask you a very simple question. Our constitution prohibits bills of attainder. Would you support doing away with this prohibition, assuming of course that all bills of attainder were passed by national plebescite?

That is, if a majority of voters decided to send John Gotti to prison, off to prison he goes, no matter what crime he has or has not commited.

If the majority cannot send John Gotti to prison, or execute him, or fine him, isn’t this undemocratic? Would bills of attainder be good or bad?

Another point. You make a big deal about majorities and minorities. But surely this is a function of the polity. If a majority of people in the city of Seattle votes for John Smith as mayor, is that really “the will of the people”? After all, the majority of the state of Washington didn’t vote for him, nor did the majority of the the United States of America, nor did the majority of the people of North America, nor did the majority of the people of the world.

Is it important that the people who voted for John Smith are the people who live in the city that he is going to govern? Why or why not? Surely if the people of Seattle are a minority of the people of the United States, so why should they be able to undemocratically impose their will on the majority?

And why are you allowed to decide what you have for dinner tomorrow night? After all, there’s only one of you. If a majority of the people decide you should have creamed corn for dinner, why should you…as a minority of one…have the power to undemocratically veto their decision?

What I’m getting at is that there are certain spheres of life where the views of the majority are irrelevant. In my personal life I can do as I wish, within broad limits, and the rest of the majority can go hang.

Suppose we had a vote here in this thread, on whether 2sense should be allowed to advocate strict majority rule. If the majority thought you should shut up, would you shut up? Obviously, you are the only one who holds your view, everyone else seems to disagree with you. If we held a vote, would you abide by the result? Why or why not? And what would be an appropriate polity to make such a decision, and why? Would it just be people who’ve posted to this thread? Read this thread? Members of the Straight Dope? American citizens? If a majority of American citizens voted for you to shut up, would you find that fair and just? And how do you decide what polity is qualified to vote for what actions? What exactly constitutes majority rule?

95

Is the constitution democratic? Not wholly, but it was not designed to be wholly democratic. The founding fathers had an idea which was very much aligned with “the masses are asses” and did not want absolute power in the hands of any one person or group of people.

First and foremost, you must understand that America is not a democracy, we are a democratic republic.

Regarding enactment and amendment:
The constitution and bill of rights had to be ratifited by the states, so it was voted upon. Amendments are voted upon by reprasentatives, who are voted for by the people.

The Senate:
Designed with the intent of representing as many views as equally as possible. Does Wyoming have as much say as California? Yes, and that’s the point! Even though the majority in the senate has more control, numbers in population does not grant power (which I admit is undemocratic), but the idea is tha tideas are, more or less, equally expressed (which is democratic). Also, the Senate is only 1/2 of one of the brances of our government. Let’s look at things in whole, shall we?

The Electral College:
It sucks, I know.

The Judiciary:
Beyond the appointment of life term supreme judicies (which is terribly undemocratic), the judice system for a fair, speedy trial by peers where you are innocent until proven guilty is one of the greatest aspects of our government.

Is the constitution democratic? Not wholly, but it was not designed to be wholly democratic. The founding fathers had an idea which was very much aligned with “the masses are asses” and did not want absolute power in the hands of any one person or group of people.

96

No but if it did happen I wouldn’t be particularly upset about it. I am a bit of an existentialist and property is much less important to me than life or liberty. ( I’m not sure you should still call it a “bill” though since it wouldn’t be considered by a legislative body. ) I think the citizens have enough to do as it is without hearing individual judicial cases. Perhaps giving people this responsibility would teach people some responsibility. I think it more likely though it wouldn’t be used often enough for that to happen.

Well now, that is a bit more difficult. Attainer deals with a person’s stuff ( and thus their family’s inheritance ) rather than with their freedom. I would object more strongly to this.

Indeed it is but is having the people as a whole sit in judgement of criminal cases really practical? I don’t think so. If the majority really wanted this kind of justice system I’m not sure I could go along but I do believe that the government should.

Yes it would be the will of the people of that polity.

Um, like you said it has to do with the polity. Nonmembers aren’t part of the polity and so don’t get a vote. This isn’t a philosophical problem though there are often practical difficulties such as here in Allegheny County with its balkanized municipalities.

Personally I feel competent to make that decision on my own. If a majority feels we should have laws to the contrary I suppose I would have to exercise some civil disobedience. Personally I trust the people are wise enough not to want such a law.

I don’t disagree. I don’t require that every decision be decided democratically. Just the basic ones.

If there were a rule that said I had to I would obey just as I would obey now if a moderator unilaterally told me to shut up. I understand I am welcome here on sufferance and that if I break the rules that welcome can be withdrawn. This isn’t a public polity; it’s private property.

The people who voted upon it, or rather those that voted upon the men who voted upon it are all dead with the minor exception of some elderly folks in Hawaii and Alaska whose representatives had to accept the Constitution as the price of statehood. Why should us living Americans be bound by the will of dead Americans?

Indeed but these are not straight votes. It takes more than a majority to pass a constitutional amendment. FDR once said that with one million dollars he could prevent the ratification of any amendment.

Do you have any evidence that it was designed with this intent or that it in fact does function in this manner?

I think I’ll take a page from Lemur866. Lets say from now on I have to agree to anything before you are allowed to put it in your mouth. My veto is only half of the decisionmaking process so its all fine and dandy, right? I hope you like cream corn.

97

We have to start with a brief explanation of the difference between a measurement and a ratio. A measurement is a value assigned to a particular characteristic of a phenomena. That is, it is a measure of the extent of that characteristic. Length is a characteristic and can be measured in several different ways. Ratios are comparisons between different values. Percentages are a form of comparison between parts of a value and the whole value. So, half of a value is always 50% whether that value is 10, 1000, 1,000,000, or many orders of magnitude larger. The difference is often described as varying sizes of pies. Would you like an equal piece of a tiny pie, or an equal piece of a very big pie?

So, you are correct that in any given election the voters have 100% of the power to elect. But how do you measure the power assigned to an election? If I want to compare the power exercised by Canadian voters to that of Japanese voters, I cannot use percentages. Canadians have 0% of the power in Japanese elections and visa versa. The problem becomes even more difficult if I want to compare entirely different voting systems. In the simplified system of equally divided districts (9 voters divided into 3 districts of 3 voters each) the voters still have 100% of the power. In your lottery example, the voters still have 100% of the power. In the Dictatorship example from the article, they also have 100% of the power in the election. The difference being that the amount of power, not the percentage, changes.

Percentages tell us nothing (or at best extremely little) about the merits of a particular voting system. As I said before, the amount of power exercisable by individual voters can be effected by the method of counting votes. That is the size of the pie is a seperate number from the equality of the pieces. They are both important, but they measure different things.

I’d like to add here that the article we are discussing does not give a thourough argument in favor of the Electoral College. It necessarily glosses over the math necessary to prove that this particular system is better than another. It does, however, give a good argument in favor of districted elections over direct elections. And it proposes a reasonable model for measuring and comparing changes to the Electoral College.

Well, circular logic yes. This is not what you said originally. You said that changing the system would benifit elites. Now, when asked for proof that such a thing has happened, you say that since elites were benifited your point is proven. I suggest that you be willing to look at evidence as well as logic. Logic alone will get you nowhere.

Well, a nation is "is a group of people sharing aspects of their language, culture and/or ethnicity. " I might add geographic proximity to that list, although this is a slippery term. A nation is also "a politically organized body of people under a single government ". The United States of America is more the latter than the former. The two concepts often overlap. This is because groups who share aspects of language, culture, and/or ethnicity will often form a politically organized body. This is the right of self determination.

Yes, but altering the way such decisions are made does in fact alter each states ability to affect them, and thus alters each states power. If not, then why not remove the vote altogether. Since have a voice does not change the fact that laws can be made and thus does not change your status as a free person, it cannot be said to change your political power.

The issue had to do with whether this comparison was valid. I propose that Wilt would not have scored 100 points in an NFL game. But that tells us nothing about whether he would have in a Basketball game with a different team. Or against a different team. Those sorts of analogies would have been more apt.

Good. We can get away from the hyperbole and stick to the useful points then.

I was refering to the evidence of the popular vote. I only meant that just because polls for other candidates are absent we cannot assume that some other candidate would have been more popular. We can cast aspersions on the popularity of the elected candidates, but we cannot say that they were elected over more popular candidates.

No, not at all. We simply disagree on how to measure proportions of the population. You beleive that a direct election is the one and only way, and I maintain that districted elections have distinct advantages.

I included this in it entirety because I want to ask a simple question. Why can you assume that a candidate who will win California easily will be at all popular in the other states? Remember that I said he would not be viable unless “he polled competitavely in enough of the other states”. You are assuming that such a candidate would. I suggest that your assumption depends on the ditricted nature of the Electoral College. In order for political parties to produce viable candidates they have to persuade the correct porportion of the population to vote with them. That is, their message has to reach as much of the country as possible. They temper messages which seem to favor a small number of state populations because they have to reach as many different state populations as they can.

For instance. If we had had a direct election of the president, I think it is safe to say (as you suggested) that parties would select different candidates. They might put forward candidates who apeal to a hanfull of the most populous state’s voters and no one else. They might propose philosophies which benifit these states and no others. The point is that with the Ellectoral college, all of the states must be woed to some degree or another. Not, perhaps, in any partuclar election. But certainly across many elections.

[QUOTE]
**I support democracy, yes. But you are missing the fact that in the OP I acknowledged that I can accept practical limitations upon it. An acknowledgement, I might add, that I have been forced to refer to more than once since. I favor equality but not “blind equality”.

More influence and therefore more power to share.

Logical enough, but it is not relevant to the measurement of power within a given election. How power is divided is a different measurement than how much there is to divide. The division of power is not a reason to end all reasons.

Ok, now I see your confusion with regard to this line. The point that the article is makeing is not whether elections elect presidents or dog catchers. They are talking about how much influence individual voters have over the candidates policies and actions. This is what they mean by “voter power”. That’s why they included the phrase “In a democracy”. It implies that the voters determine the main functions of government. Note that it does not say “In any system of government”. If it did, then your assertion that they used “voter power” differently would be accurate. I don’t think that they are claiming that a population which votes for dog catcher but not president is a democracy. Your assertion that voters need to vote for the important officers of government is taken into account by this phrase.

No, but when you then go on to suggest that he is proposing that a lottery is just as good as an election you are in fact twisting his words. He is saying just the opposite.

When I accuse you of “blind equality” I mean that you have given very little in the way of limiting democracy. You say that your assertions are based on “principles and practicallity” but your only nod to practicality seems to be representation. And your continued assertion that the constitution is imposed on us seems to invalidate that as well.

98

Puerto Rico has a vote every 4 years to decide if it wants to become the 51st state. Every time they say no, largely because they don’t want to pay federal income tax. Hawaii and Alaska accepted the constitution because they wanted to.

The 3/4 vote needed to ratify an amendment was instated with the purpose that there should be as little conflict of interest with the amendment as possible. So that in a “close call” as much as 49% of the people would not have to deal with an amendment that they do not agree with. Undemocratic? Yes. Better in the long run? Yes.

What FDR said deals with corruption, not with how democratic something is on paper or in principle.

Read transcripts of the 2nd constitutional convention. Concerns of states with larger populations crushing the smaller states were abound, and so the senate was created as a companion to the house of representatives so that states would get equal votes, regardless of population size. Undemocratic? Yes, but it was designed with the intent of ensuring that all the people, not just the majority, have a voice.

Which is why the house and the senate are of the same branch of government (which really means that it is only 1/3 of the government). =)

99

“Ratio” is Latin for “argument” and yours could use some work. Of what use is any description of voting power that doesn’t reflect the result of an election? The way to compare Nipponese elections with Canadian elections by examining how those elections affect the political system of each nation. That’s the “size of the pie” that we are concerned with. That’s what 100% of the voting power of an election equals. Canadian elections have more power if the officials elected have more control over their government than those elected by the Nipponese. **

What is this supposed advantage of districting an election? That an individual has a greater chance of being the determining vote? How is this preferable to ensuring that all votes are equal?

Familiarize yourself with the argument at hand before attempting to judge my logic. You have my claim exactly backwards.

I don’t know how to explain this any better. A potential to lessen, or increase, a state’s sovereignty does not lessen its sovereignty.

Well, we can say they were elected over more popular candidates if the other candidate got more individual votes in the same election as Gore did but you are right that we can’t claim that Al Gore would have gotten the most votes if we had held a direct election. I believe I’ve said so already. We don’t know who would be elected if we were to get rid of the bias of the electoral college. We only know the bias will be gone. **

To repeat: we are talking about prenomination support. We have a 2 party system here in the US. When a person gains the presidential nomination of one of those 2 major parties a lot of support in every state in the Union comes along with it. If the Republican were somehow objectionable to other states despite his support in California then he wouldn’t be more likely for the nomination than the candidate with 35% support in those other states. But, all other things being equal, the candidate with 55% in Cali and 2% everywhere else is a more viable candidate for the nomination than the other. This shows that the EC biases parties to selecting not the candidate with widespread support but rather candidates with support in certain places.

If a party were trying to win the Oval Office with just the support of populous states then the EC isn’t their enemy, it is their friend. The eleven most populous states control a majority of the electoral votes. If a majority in those states vote for a candidate he will win even everyone else votes for someone else. Given a direct election however there is no easy way for a party to get all of the electoral support of the large states. Many of the individuals there will vote for other candidates. But luckily for our hypothetical party they don’t have to worry about that because the EC bundles up each state’s electoral power nicely for them so that they could win ( assuming a close vote in the top 11 states with extremely low turnout and overwhelming rejection of that candidate with overwhelming turnout in the rest of the states ) by a vote of 10 million in favor and 150 million against. But that’s not likely to happen. Parties are almost certain to seek to appeal to those people whose votes can help them. In a direct election that’s every single vote. **

**Duh. That is my point. That the article ignores what actually makes elections powerful.

No, they make clear that what they mean is the chance an individual vote will determine the election. In fact they do address a more realistic view of “voter power” but only in passing.

I have never claimed that he is supporting election by lottery. That would be ridiculous. I am pointing out that a lottery can fit his definition of equal voting power. Which is equally ridiculous. The point is that in order to pretend that everyone is equal he is taking an odd view of elections.

I have agreed that direct democracy is impractical and so is electing judges. I am willing to accept more if anyone can make a decent case for impracticality. So far I haven’t seen anything to convince me.

Can I get a nonstatist answer? You know, one that considers the individuals that make up a state? Hawaii and Alaska did accept the Constitution and I am willing to assume that most of the individuals eligible to vote at the time in those states did favor it. But most of those people are dead and the few who remain are the only living Americans to have elected representatives to vote on the Constitution. Why should us living Americans be bound by the will of dead Americans?

Indeed. It shows the interests of a few can deny ratification to an amendment approved by the many. Early in the 20th century a Child Labor Amendment failed to reach ratification.

There never was a 2nd convention much as the “Antifederalists” wanted one. At least not at the national level. And the one federal convention we did have didn’t leave any transcripts. The official journal is just the bare bones with as little detail as possible to protect the reputations of the men who framed it. The best source on the convention remains the notes of James Madison which I have read. It’s true that there was much wrangling over the manner of representation in the Senate but I don’t agree that this equates with ensuring that all the people have a voice. It did ensure enough representation for the “small” states to entice them to join the Union.

100

OK, I’m tired enough of the gargantuan quotes. Let me try this another way. I agree with you that one measure of the power of a particular election is the power that the office holder will weild. However, you seem to continue to ignore that this is not the only measure. If we assume that we are talking about electing the president, then the only question is how do we run the election. All of the claims of “voter power” in the article we are discussing have to do with this. Even the quote you listed before. He was trying to say that as the election method is improved the people effectively have more power. I already tried to show you how influence is at least as important as the power of the office. You have not even addressed it. Let me rephrase it:

Before the election (while choosing a candidate) and during the election campaign (while trying to get me to vote for the candidate) my power can be measured two ways. As you say, the office under consideration is important. But lets assume that in each case we are talking about the president. In the first case, I am 1 lone vote in an electorate of 100,000,000 voters. In this first scenario the candidate has to win a larger vote than any other candidate.

In the second case, I am 1 voter in one of 50 districts encompassing the same 100 million voters. In this second scenario the candidate has to win a majority of the electoral votes from all of the 50 districts.

The question is, in which scenario do I have more power? And how can we determine the number?

The question is not who has more or less equality, thats a different topic. I’m trying to get you to understand (not agree with, just understand) the idea that my power under these two scenarios might be different.

As far as direct election making winning large states difficult, I’d have to suggest that you are not applying your idea of complete rule changes. Remember, if I can win more power by winning more than 51% of the populous states, I might be tempted to propose policies which more radically favor those large states. Even if those policies might really piss off the other states. Under the current system, political parties temper such radical ideas becasue they know they only have to win 51% of the California (for instance) to win its electoral votes. If they thought they would have more power by getting 60% or 75% or more of California’s votes, then they might propose even more radical policies to favor California than they do.

It makes them spread their message around the country more than a direct election would.

Oops. You caught a typo. I was thinking along the lines of change and mistyped your argument as a result. This is what my pargraph should have said.
“Well, circular logic yes. This is not what you said originally. You said that difficulty in changing the system would benifit elites. Now, when asked for proof that such a thing has happened, you say that since elites were benifited your point is proven. I suggest that you be willing to look at evidence as well as logic. Logic alone will get you nowhere.”