That makes sense to me too. If voting were by popular vote, then the only states that would matter would be CA, NY and maybe TX and FL. Beyond the interests of those places no one would care. Fracking, lead in water, auto plant workers. . all that stuff wouldn’t be at the center of politics. We probably wouldn’t even hear about those issues. We would hear about AI, financial instrument configurations, social media issues, etc.
But according to this author, small states have not been the ones to hold back the popular vote issue.
author of Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? by Marina N. Bolotnikova in a Harvard Magazine interview
According to her, it’s the complexity of the system that makes it difficult to change. One change leads to another change which ultimately would negatively affect the people who might want to abolish the current system.
Which goes back to states’ rights and the ability of the states to game the system. Moving the game from one metaphorical court just puts it in another.
This doesn’t follow, no matter how many times it is repeated, it is still wrong.
CA and NY are not monoliths, nor are TX or FL. What you don’t seem to understand, since you are still in the electoral college mindset, is that candidates would not be campaigning to states, they would be campaigning to people.
The electoral college means that candidates are free to ignore the states that will not go for them, and pretty much ignore the states that will, concentrating the majority of their focus on the “swing states”. This means that the interests of 5 or 6 states are the only ones heard about.
A popular vote means that every single voter has the same power as every other voter. It means that the candidates need to pay attention to the needs of all of the voters, rather than consider some more important than others based on the state that they live in.
Between the states that you listed, a bit less than a third of the population lives. Assuming that they all voted in lockstep, a candidate who ignores the other two thirds of the population would not get very far. And the assumption that they would vote in lockstep is a poor one, as they do not do that now.
It’s not just you, I hear that assertion all the time. And is simply asserted, with no hint of critical thinking behind it. The slightest bit of effort on your part would put to rest this line of thought, but it is not just laziness, but motivated reasoning that allows this fallacy to continue to persist.
Exactly. Trump has millions of supporters in California, Illinois, and New York but the electoral college forces him to ignore them. Trump got 6m votes in CA… what if he had increased that 33% to 8m, while doing the same in NY and IL? Then he would be looking @ 78 million votes, possibly winning a popular vote election.
I wouldn’t consider the E.U. a good model of representation even before seeing that data on the European Parliament. The European Commission is way disproportionate. Too many things allow any one country to have a veto.
The EU is also a much looser assembly than the US is.
The individual countries give up some sovereignty, but retain most of it, much more than the dualism that we navigate in the US. If nothing else, there is a clear method for a country to leave the EU, even if messy in execution.
If a country decided that it no longer wants to abide the arrangement, it is welcome to leave. States that get disproportionately less representation in the federal government do not have that option.
In a number of ways, actually. I’ve never understood the idea of resisting improvement to ones own by pointing out that you are not the worst. If one of your neighbors doesn’t mow his lawn, does that mean that you don’t really have to either, as long as his yard looks worse?
k9 is right. Small states are ridiculously over represented in the nation’s most powerful legislative body, disproportionately represented in the lower house and get a significant boost in their impact on the EC. When is it enough? When do the mainstream Americans who live in urban areas get their needs adequately addressed?
Voters in 43 states had little effect on the recent election. Maybe we should recognize that everyone’s vote should matter equally.
Well, we are a nation that is formed from a collection of states. That’s not going to change until there is a new constitutional convention which the smaller states aren’t going to ratify if they lose a large amount of relative power or there is a new revolution/civil war where state borders are erased.
Oh, I agree it’s no reason not to try and improve. But comparing to other countries can provide a reality check. For example, if all similar countries have implemented UHC without problems, that suggests you could too.
And you are correct that they are short sighted and selfish, and will continue to work against the interests of the country as a whole. That they have the power to maintain this situation does not justify it.
If someone puts a gun to your head and orders you to do something, the fact that they are the one giving the orders is not going to change unless they willingly stop threatening you. That they are not likely to give up the gun does not actually mean that they are justified in holding you hostage.
And that’s what this really is, is the small states holding the rest of the country hostage. They know that they have no ethical or moral reason for having that power, which is why they are so threatening and damaging to the rest of the country.
If you want to be fatalistic, and say that there’s nothing we can do, and that we are just bound to be beholden to those who would rather see us dead than to work with us to advance our shared goals, then that’s one thing. But to justify it as though they have some sort of right to that power is just pure bullshit.
Right, you can always look to your neighbors for inspiration to do better.
But that was not what I was responding to, what I was responding to was pointing to your neighbors and saying that at least we aren’t as bad as they are.
Do you get that those are two completely different situations, that have different motives and different outcomes? That one should be encouraged, and the other should be discouraged as the fallacious form of thinking that it is?
Justifies it based on what set of principles? That every person of a nation has the exact same power? That’s not the basis of the foundation of this or any other nation.
I just gave two methods of doing things. Nothing is stopping the states from holding another constitutional convention. Nothing is off the table if they do.
The idea that some people should have more power than others has been the foundation of some pretty terrible regimes.
What is your justification for some people having more power than others, other than, “That’s just the way it is, and they have the power and aren’t going to give it up.”?
This is true. The only thing stopping them is the states that want to hold onto power. That’s a bit like saying, “There’s nothing stopping you from overpowering that guy with the gun to your head.”
Including requirements for ratification.
If a constitutional convention were held, and it called for ratification by the majority of the people, rather than the majority of the states, then it would be passed under that.
It’s just the way it is has a historical reason. It was the basis of the formation of the nation. I don’t support minor countries having a permanent seat at the Security Council in the UN and having a veto power that rivals the big 5. Why give up our power to empower some other nation? I don’t support other countries having a say in how we use our nuclear arsenal, aircraft carriers, broadcasting ability, GPS etc. Is it fair? I don’t care if it is or isn’t.
But on the subject of states voluntarily ceding sovereignty to a central government I have no problem with compromises made in the past. Were they optimal? Noone knows what optimal is. We don’t have a control Earth where we can run countless simulations to see what set of parameters leads to a particular variable being maximized at a given point in time.
We have a mechanism for change and if enough people feel that there needs to be change there will be.
That’s one thing. Another thing is, and which is probably vastly more influential, is that there would be no constraint to what nutty idea could make it into Constitution ver. 2. I don’t think most states currently want a convention.
Absolutely not. I think that a second constitutional convention would be a disaster. I prefer the amendment process. I think lifting the cap on the House is the way to go.
For a start, I wasn’t making any kind of argument, just posting something interesting I’d found.
But no, I think if one is not fallacious then neither is the other. Different countries exist in the space of what is possible; if your country is doing better than most, that suggests you may not have much room for improvement. Conversely if other countries are doing better, that suggests the opposite. Obviously, this is merely suggestive; different countries are different and subject to different circumstances.
In reference to the current topic, it seems disproportionate representation is common in large countries composed of states/provinces/etc, as a compromise between larger and smaller subunits. So that’s something to bear in mind when planning reforms.
Right, the basis of the formation of our nation in a time when people were property, and native people were just in the way.
The UN is nothing like a country, so your analogy falls flat to begin with. But yes, it is similar, due to historical reasons, a minority gets to bully the rest of the world around. As you support continued disproportionate power in the US, it doesn’t surprise me that you also want to have disproportionate power over the rest of the world.
That’s not even related, or even close to being on the table. What is being discussed right here is whether the people of the United States have a say in how we use our nuclear arsenal, aircraft carriers, broadcasting ability, GPS etc.
That’s obvious. Especially since the unfairness seems to favor your preferred outcomes.
The question is whether we should be beholden to the past, to honor the agreements of long dead people, to uphold institutions that were designed for a different time and world, or whether we try to find a more optimal solution.
No, but we have the future. We can try to make the future better than the past. We can try to learn from the mistakes of the past, and not repeat them.
No, see, that’s where once again you are just asking why we don’t just overpower the person with the gun to our head. It’s not enough “people” that needs to feel there is a need for a change, it is if there are enough states, regardless of how the people feel.
They don’t have to ratify it if they don’t want to. Like you said, there is supposed to be a way to update the Constitution to keep up with the needs of the people. That people are scared that some “nutty idea” could get into it is just a feckless excuse, not a valid reason.
And we don’t have to have a full Constitutional Convention. We can just put out an amendment. If you are right that the only reason that most states don’t want a convention because there would be no constraint on “nutty ideas”, then supporting an amendment would allow them to constrain those ideas much more closely.
Why a disaster? What “nutty idea” specifically are you afraid will make it in and then be ratified by the states? You know it’s not just a pot luck event, right?
We brag that we have the oldest constitution in the world, but that’s a bit like bragging that we have the oldest car in the parking lot. It doesn’t work all that well, it breaks down from time to time, they don’t make replacement parts for it. Others have looked at what we have done, and improved upon it. It’s about time that we put the old girl into a museum, and get ourselves a new daily driver.
You just want to change things. Great. There are processes that shift power. Some are peaceful. Some aren’t. When power starts shifting you cannot control the outcome.
What mechanism are you proposing to change power and how are you going to utilize that mechanism? Wishing don’t make things so.