Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 20, 2017, 11:48:25 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  Democrats who support the electoral college
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Democrats who support the electoral college  (Read 3154 times)
McGovernForPrez
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 367


View Profile
« on: May 16, 2017, 09:26:20 pm »
Ignore

How many of us are there. Share your reasoning for supporting it despite what it has done to our past candidates.
Logged

Endorsements:
2020 President: Steve Bullock, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown
MA Governor: Robert Massey (D), Charlie Baker (R)
Boston Mayor: Tito Jackson
VA Governor: Ralph Northam
MA-07 Primary: Mike Capuano
Shameless Bernie Hack
Chickenhawk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1578


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2017, 02:27:53 am »
Ignore

xChickenhawk

Rural areas and small states have always been protected in our system, and it's broadly consistent with the aim of protecting (political and numerical) minorities that have been with us since the founding of tne country. You might as well allocate Senate seats based on population as eliminate the EC.
Logged

Why weep or slumber, America?

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." ~Sen Barry Goldwater
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20731


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2017, 02:39:06 am »
Ignore

xChickenhawk

Rural areas and small states have always been protected in our system, and it's broadly consistent with the aim of protecting (political and numerical) minorities that have been with us since the founding of tne country. You might as well allocate Senate seats based on population as eliminate the EC.

As I said in the other thread, the electoral college does not protect rural areas. Most rural areas, such as upstate New York, downstate Illinois, or Oklahoma, it renders even more irrelevant.

Nor does the electoral college protect political or numerical minorities -- the filibuster does. The electoral college does not.

The Senate would be nicer if it was allocated based on population.
Logged

Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6275


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2017, 03:23:02 am »
Ignore

xChickenhawk

Rural areas and small states have always been protected in our system, and it's broadly consistent with the aim of protecting (political and numerical) minorities that have been with us since the founding of tne country. You might as well allocate Senate seats based on population as eliminate the EC.

As I said in the other thread, the electoral college does not protect rural areas. Most rural areas, such as upstate New York, downstate Illinois, or Oklahoma, it renders even more irrelevant.

Nor does the electoral college protect political or numerical minorities -- the filibuster does. The electoral college does not.

The Senate would be nicer if it was allocated based on population.

No lol that would destroy the purposes of the senate . The way the senate is currently allocated totally fine and
Logged

Favorite Current Politician - John Kasich
Favorite of last 50 years- Reagan, Bush Sr

Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
McGovernForPrez
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 367


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2017, 10:59:43 am »
Ignore

xChickenhawk

Rural areas and small states have always been protected in our system, and it's broadly consistent with the aim of protecting (political and numerical) minorities that have been with us since the founding of tne country. You might as well allocate Senate seats based on population as eliminate the EC.

As I said in the other thread, the electoral college does not protect rural areas. Most rural areas, such as upstate New York, downstate Illinois, or Oklahoma, it renders even more irrelevant.

Nor does the electoral college protect political or numerical minorities -- the filibuster does. The electoral college does not.

The Senate would be nicer if it was allocated based on population.
Upstate NY and Downstate IL, are the exceptions not the rule. Don't know how Oklahoma is rendered "irrelevant" considering it's almost completely rural and their vote reflects that. States which are mostly rural typically vote accordingly. IL and NY aren't mostly rural states, they are mostly urban.

Sorta confused about why you think the filibuster is the only thing we should have to protect political minorities? The filibuster is incredibly weak and has already been highly eroded. There needs to be protections for the minorities in all branches of government. The amount of times the PV winner =/= EV winner is already negligible. Usually when the PV winner loses the EV it's evidence of a regional party.

Also lol at your opinion on the Senate. Might as well abolish the Senate at that point lol.
Logged

Endorsements:
2020 President: Steve Bullock, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown
MA Governor: Robert Massey (D), Charlie Baker (R)
Boston Mayor: Tito Jackson
VA Governor: Ralph Northam
MA-07 Primary: Mike Capuano
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2193
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.87

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2017, 12:58:55 pm »
Ignore

I simply don't care enough about the EC to want to change it. There are many more pressing concerns when it comes to democracy.
Logged

KS-GOV: Josh Svaty
MI-GOV: Abdul El-Sayed
OH-GOV: Betty Sutton
TN-GOV: Craig Fitzhugh
KS-04: James Thompson
IL-03: Dan Lipinski
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20731


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2017, 02:53:41 pm »
Ignore

xChickenhawk

Rural areas and small states have always been protected in our system, and it's broadly consistent with the aim of protecting (political and numerical) minorities that have been with us since the founding of tne country. You might as well allocate Senate seats based on population as eliminate the EC.

As I said in the other thread, the electoral college does not protect rural areas. Most rural areas, such as upstate New York, downstate Illinois, or Oklahoma, it renders even more irrelevant.

Nor does the electoral college protect political or numerical minorities -- the filibuster does. The electoral college does not.

The Senate would be nicer if it was allocated based on population.
Upstate NY and Downstate IL, are the exceptions not the rule.

Sure, they are the rule. Do you want me to come up with more examples? The Texas panhandle. Western Massachusetts. Alaska. Western Nebraska. Eastern Washington.

Quote
Don't know how Oklahoma is rendered "irrelevant" considering it's almost completely rural and their vote reflects that.

Because, the electoral college means the state doesn't matter for presidential elections, whereas otherwise it would.

Quote
States which are mostly rural typically vote accordingly. IL and NY aren't mostly rural states, they are mostly urban.

That depends on your definitions, but what does that have to do with my point? The electoral college doesn't help rural areas.

Quote
Sorta confused about why you think the filibuster is the only thing we should have to protect political minorities? The filibuster is incredibly weak and has already been highly eroded. There needs to be protections for the minorities in all branches of government. The amount of times the PV winner =/= EV winner is already negligible. Usually when the PV winner loses the EV it's evidence of a regional party.

I didn't say the filibuster is the only thing we should have, but the filibuster is something that protects political minorities, whereas the EC doesn't. The political minority that loses the EC or the PV gets no protection from the EC after it has voted. The presidency is unitary, so it's not a good vehicle to protect political minorities to begin with.

Quote
Also lol at your opinion on the Senate. Might as well abolish the Senate at that point lol.

You're the one who brought up the Senate. FTR, a unicameral legislature would be nice.
Logged

Shameless Bernie Hack
Chickenhawk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1578


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2017, 02:00:35 am »
Ignore

@Beet -

Your point about upstate NY and downstate IL is well taken, which is why my more nuanced opinion is that we should adopt universal Mainebraska and redistricting reform.

However, your notion that western Nebraska is irrelevant is completely off base. Yes, no one has to campaign in Hastings or Scottsbluff. But that's because they, when couple with WY, MT, ID, ND, SD, KS &c &c form a very big part of the electoral vote base for any GOP candidate. An entire political party's realm of the possible is formed based on Plains and Southern opinion, much as any Democratic candidate might as well write their concession speech if they go outside of what's acceptable in NYC or CA.

Likewise, I'm not willing to consign the political influence of VT, ME, NH, MT &c &c's role in the Presidential selection process because small states tend to vote against my party.

As for a unicameral legislature, that's just silly-talk.
Logged

Why weep or slumber, America?

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." ~Sen Barry Goldwater
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20731


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2017, 02:21:06 pm »
Ignore

@Beet -

Your point about upstate NY and downstate IL is well taken, which is why my more nuanced opinion is that we should adopt universal Mainebraska and redistricting reform.

Mainebraska unfortunately suffers from the same problem, only on a smaller scale. For any district that encompasses both urban and rural areas, the rural areas would be irrelevant if they are smaller than the urban areas. It does reduce the scale of the problem, but it doesn't eliminate it as a straight-up PV would.

Quote
However, your notion that western Nebraska is irrelevant is completely off base. Yes, no one has to campaign in Hastings or Scottsbluff. But that's because they, when couple with WY, MT, ID, ND, SD, KS &c &c form a very big part of the electoral vote base for any GOP candidate. An entire political party's realm of the possible is formed based on Plains and Southern opinion, much as any Democratic candidate might as well write their concession speech if they go outside of what's acceptable in NYC or CA.

That assumes that a place like western Nebraska (or more broadly, the rural Midwest) is only significant as a part of the 'Republican coalition.'  But if that were the case, why does it need special representation as a place? The same would be true under the national popular vote. What the electoral college removes that the national popular vote would respect is western Nebraska's interests as western Nebraska. In other words, any factor that distinguishes this place, in particular, from all other places. Does it have a particular export? Is it home to a particular company? It is these concerns that are erased. Sure, the place is significant as part of a party coalition, but this only matters as far as the balance between the parties. It's as if saying the only thing worth representing about western Nebraska is it's Republicanism. If that were the case, the same result could be achieved by giving the GOP an automatic bonus in the EC.

Quote
Likewise, I'm not willing to consign the political influence of VT, ME, NH, MT &c &c's role in the Presidential selection process because small states tend to vote against my party.

To be clear, I opposed the EC when the Democrats were advantaged by it in 2008 and 2012. This is not about party, but the principle of democracy, and equal representation. My point is that VT and MT are on the losing side of the EC, while ME and NH are on the winning side. VT is on the same side as NY. The divide the EC creates is not between urban and rural areas, but between swing states and non-swing states.
Logged

Singletxguyforfun
Full Member
***
Posts: 201
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2017, 04:45:02 pm »
Ignore

We would be at the mercy of the big cities without the electoral college system. LA county, Cook County and NYC combined have about 23 million people that would mean those 3 metros alone could out weigh WY AK VT ND SD MT HI DE ME NH RI IDNE  NM UT NV and IA combined
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20731


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2017, 05:26:53 pm »
Ignore

By that standard, Floridians are at the mercy of Miami. Miami has about 6 million people and that means that metro alone can outweigh Collier Marion Osceola Lake Escambia St. Lucie Leon Alachua St. Johns Clay Okaloosa Bay Hernando Charlotte Santa Rosa Martin Indian River, Citrus and Sumter counties combined. The rest of Florida might as well not even vote and just like Miami decide!
Logged

PregnantChad
Newbie
*
Posts: 17


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: -5.22

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2017, 06:17:49 pm »
Ignore

We would be at the mercy of the big cities without the electoral college system. LA county, Cook County and NYC combined have about 23 million people that would mean those 3 metros alone could out weigh WY AK VT ND SD MT HI DE ME NH RI IDNE  NM UT NV and IA combined

But that's where people actually live.  Why should their votes matter less just because of population density?

Also, even if we assume big cities vote collectively as one bloc(k?), which they're certainly doing lately, it's not like a Republican can't win the popular vote (GW Bush won it by ~3M in '04, IIRC - and also basically tied it in '00; '08 and '12 would've been decisive losses either way).
Logged

"When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat." - George Carlin
PregnantChad
Newbie
*
Posts: 17


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: -5.22

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2017, 09:49:35 pm »
Ignore

Thanks, McGovern, for getting back to me on this subject buried in a different sub-forum and thread.

I thought it'd be better to continue here.  I never favored the current system all that much and have oscillated between slight dislike and ambivalence.  I feel worse about it now, but I admit that that may be from still being butt-hurt about last year.  I'm still trying to get my head around both sides of the argument, purely as a hypothetical exercise, and your points bring in considerations other than the usual talking points, which are almost partisan at this point.  So, thanks.

I hadn't thought about the discrete state cultures (e.g., VT vs. NH).  But why should that matter?  A vote for the Democrat is a vote for the Democrat, be it from VT, NH or TX.  To me, it means a conscious decision to want the same outcome.

...The vast majority of the 3 million votes came from one state, California. Californians decided how they wanted their electoral votes to be spent. Similarly the people of PA, Wisconsin, and MI also decided how they wanted their electoral votes spent.  Everybody's vote counts within a given state.

The president was never and has never been elected by the people. He's been elected by the 538 electors, who in turn are beholden to the people of each given state. It's two tiered and always has been. The presidential election isn't one election, it's 50. This is better because as I said it allows the unique socioeconomic and political cultures of each state to have better representation.

Ehh...I just don't buy the argument that CA provided her the margin of popular vote victory.  It couldn't have done so without the 60M or so votes from all the other states, whose votes count the same for that purpose.  In a way, it's like saying Anthony Kennedy is the deciding vote on the Supreme Court -- he only is "the deciding vote" when exactly 4 other justices also vote the same as he.  This would also be true if he, like CA, were significant enough to be weighted more heavily.

I still think there are other ways to represent those competing priorities and political cultures than the election of one chief executive.  Yes, we're a republic, but I don't feel so attached to a system from 200 years ago, when only white property-owning males could vote and slaves were counted as fractional people for the voting benefit of their masters.  They also didn't favor the direct election of senators, but we changed that 100 years ago and we're still a republic.  Just b/c it's this way and is virtually impossible to change, and candidates "know the rules", we don't have to like it.  No one was around when the 12th amendment was ratified and folks like CA Republicans have no way of changing winner-take-all and they're just stuck. 

Small states, rural regions of states, etc., get boosted powers within their own states and in their representation in the House and the Senate.  In a nation as closely divided as this one, I just don't see how it's a good thing that the plurality of voters for President and the bare-minority of voters for Congressional elections get effectively no power whatsoever at the federal level. 

...[The EC] forces candidates to reach out beyond "rallying the base".
Depends on how efficiently typical party votes are distributed.

Republicans in 2016 were forced to step outside their free trade comfort zone, and they were rewarded by winning a number of swing states. It forces the parties to constantly evolve on issues that are relevant to our time and that's ultimately a good thing.


These were very narrow victories in an all-or-nothing by-state system in which there can only be one winner overall.

Party platforms evolve anyway, at least when they want to keep power and know how to do it.  Bill Clinton was a popular corporate centrist who won in '92 after three consecutive Democratic ass-kickings.  That same corporate centrism burned his wife big-league when she ran for the same job under the same party two decades later.

and also...

... It's about economic and political identity. The state you were born in directly affects your own political culture. Each state has a unique political culture and that needs to be protected.

There are other ways to do that, and I'm not convinced it needs to be a priority when deciding the chief executive, of which there can only be one.

 Obama won states within a fairly diverse region to be quite honest. He won the Pacific coast, New England, Rust Belt, Mid-Atlantic, and even some more of the upper southern states, like Virginia and North Carolina...


Don't forget Florida! Smiley  As a different example, Kerry only won the Northeast, the West Coast and a chunk of the Rust Belt.  If things were a little different in Ohio, he'd have had just slightly more dominance in the Rust Belt, losing everything else, the popular vote, but would've been elected President regardless.  I guess the EC might be good at measuring regional dominance (I'm not sure it is), but I don't see why it should be paramount.

...Gore won the popular vote and just narrowly lost the electoral vote. In these cases I would enjoy to see PV award to rectify such a small EV loss.

Funny, I had a possibly-unworkable opposite idea -- i.e., in cases where the national popular vote difference between the top 2 candidates, possibly after instant run-off, is within, say, 1%, the EC is the decider.

However in the case of Clinton and Trump the EV vote compared to the PV vote was so large that I think it says something about the base of Clinton's support.

That they're just not efficiently distributed.  It wasn't like she had 0% Rust Belt voters; she had roughly half of them.  A change of merely 40,000 votes (out of > 100M cast) in just the right places and she wins the EC and the popular vote, roughly the same as Bush did in '04, when there was no outcry about the way the we do this. 

Without the electoral college the United States would be dominated by regional parties...
In part b/c of the EC, we have two bought-off national parties who function worse than a class of misbehaving 2nd graders.  What are we clinging to? lol
Logged

"When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat." - George Carlin
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6785
Austria


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2017, 07:20:40 am »
Ignore

i am okay with rural (or more correctly: sparse-populated small states voters) voters being over-represented in the senate.  the EC on the other hand is a mistake from hell and outdated.
Logged

Da-Jon-Ben Jealous & Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16461
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2017, 02:42:36 pm »
Ignore

Too much weight is given to Ohio, Iowa and Virginia.  Clinton and Gore came close and should of won the elections based on popular vote swing than electoral college.
Logged
Figueira
84285
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8691


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2017, 03:49:04 pm »
Ignore

Don't know how Oklahoma is rendered "irrelevant" considering it's almost completely rural and their vote reflects that.

What? Oklahoma is only a third rural.
Logged

Note: I am not actually British.

Figueira
84285
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8691


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2017, 03:55:30 pm »
Ignore

The problem with the electoral college isn't that it benefits "small states"--even if each states had a number of EVs exactly corresponding to its population, Trump would still win. The problem is that if a slim majority of people in a state vote for a particular candidate, that candidate wins ALL of the state's electoral votes. Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia--all very populous states--by relatively slim margins, thus winning those states despite the existence of huge minorities in those states that voted for Clinton.
Logged

Note: I am not actually British.

Figueira
84285
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8691


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2017, 04:00:46 pm »
Ignore

We would be at the mercy of the big cities without the electoral college system. LA county, Cook County and NYC combined have about 23 million people that would mean those 3 metros alone could out weigh WY AK VT ND SD MT HI DE ME NH RI IDNE  NM UT NV and IA combined

Not necessarily. If the states you listed vote a combined 80% for Trump, and the cities you listed vote a combined 60% for Clinton, the states would outvote the cities. What electoral college supporters just can't accept is that that isn't the case--there aren't as many Republicans in Manhattan as there are Democrats in rural Nebraska, so Clinton ends up having more total support. You're using this bogus geographical argument to make up for the fact that your candidate just isn't popular.
Logged

Note: I am not actually British.

2,868,691
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20885
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islan


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2017, 08:43:56 pm »
Ignore

The EC locks out rural whites in blue states, urban people in red states, Southern blacks, Hispanics in Arizona and Texas, etc.

My vote never helped Kerry, Obama, or Hillary one bit.
Logged
m&m
Megameow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 534
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -3.83

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2017, 09:27:47 pm »
Ignore

I wonder, why are both party's primaries predominantly proportionally-allocated delegate states? Few states on the GOP side and none on the Democratic side allocate delegates winner-take-all. How about the electoral college just change to do the same as primaries do.
Logged
TD
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3716
View Profile
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2017, 03:05:13 pm »
Ignore

I oppose changes to the Electoral College. Iím going to lay out why and itís a different argument than the traditional GOP arguments. I think I can offer a new perspective (aimed at Virginia and others who have been debating this).

I think the Electoral College is essential to our national political stability. I think in fact it is the key behind our enduring realignments and promoting a stable government that lasts decades. They force the creation of two grand coalitions to square off - usually, one ruling coalition and one minority coalition, as the states rarely change overnight (or in sufficient enough quantity to shift the College permanently; when they do, thatís a realignment). In turn, that creates a downballot effect of forcing grand coalitions to exist (ergo the Democrats and Republicans).


For instance, the Electoral College ratified Jeffersonís 1800 victory and the Southern Democrats, a coalition that lasted until 1860. Ditto Lincolnís Republicans until 1932. The Electoral College promotes long running ruling coalitions and minority coalitions to face off but with solid defined ideological parameters. Since the states themselves rarely change their political profile overnight, this promotes a stable political system and lessens upheavals and radical governments. I think that has been a key factor in promoting our stable politics.

For instance, the New Deal was allowed to ferment for decades before it became a reality. The Electoral College incorporated the Populist Party into the Democratic and Republican Parties (and ultimately led to the 1912 election, where the Democrats incorporated all the Populist and progressive planks). We might have been worse off if in 1896, the Bryan Democratic Party had taken all the planks of silver and run as a radical party instead of the decades long transformation that allowed the progressives to refine and hone their agenda.

So, in that vein of thought, I think the Electoral College forces the creation of two grand coalitions that square off. The ruling majority coalition and the minority coalition. They allow the majority to rule for decades with checks and balances within the system and opposition from the minority coalition. Instead of one niche party ruling the country with 30-35% of the vote, we see coalitions ruling with, generally 45-55% of the vote. The College forces grand coalitions, and diffuses the power of radicals within the coalition.

I also have come to oppose IRV voting. Hereís the reason. Third parties have played an important part in American history, particularly in transitioning a minority coalition into becoming a majority coalition. The Populist Party of 1892, the Bull Moose Party of 1912, and the Progressive candidacy of Robert LaFollette all paved the way for the election of Franklin Roosevelt. Strom Thurmondís 1948 candidacy, George Wallaceís 1968 candidacy led to Reaganís 1980 realignment. Third parties are an important signal, especially to the minority coalition to incorporate their thinking and to take steps to become the majority coalition.

In short, I would change very little in the Electoral College or the way we elect Presidents. I think weíre near perfect. Redistricting might be another kettle of fish, but I oppose any changes to the Electoral College.

(Also, Iím  a registered anti-Trump Republican).

Lastly, a provocative thought. The Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, through the Electoral Collegeís mechanisms, must now review their ideology and platform to figure out how to appeal to 270+ worth of electoral votes and to appeal to a broad swath of states. That alone might create a workable progressive ideology.
Logged

Between Two Majorities

ďI die the king's faithful servant, but God's first.Ē -- St. Thomas More

"The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom." -- President George W. Bush

#NeverTrump Republican
TD
SilentCal1924
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3716
View Profile
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2017, 03:32:12 pm »
Ignore

I would also contend the Constitution worked out perfectly in 2016 in expressing the will of the voters and appropriately managing the winning and losing coalitions in 2016. And I would contend liberals and Democrats alike should continue to support the Electoral College and Constitution.  It would go a long way to stopping Trump.

IRV, for the record, might alleviate some of the damage done by ending the Electoral College - but I argue itís not worth it and doesnít solve the value of third parties helping the coalition blocs shift. Anyway, abandoning the Electoral College would allow the Trumpkins to abandon their fellow Republicans and create a third party that would win the election with 35-40% of the vote and maybe even rule in the House with a plurality. The electoral college at the moment forces the Trumpkins to work with normal Republicans in the same party, which is crippling them and styming them from governing.

Going forward, Trump must win more than his 46% of the vote to win re-election in 2020.  That requires him to assemble a coalition and thatís going to be rather difficult. Democrats should embrace the Electoral College to stop Trump and to force the GOP to assemble a working majority coalition. If they canít, theyíll win the election. A ton of the GOPís problems right now is that their coalition is inherently unstable and in transition to becoming a minority coalition.  Thatís in part due to the Electoral College which has mandated a grand coalition to be able to form a government and thus is hobbling Donald Trump.

2016 demonstrated that Hillary Clinton didnít have the coalition needed to win the election (she clearly lost swaths of the Democratic minority coalition in the Upper Midwest) but it also showed that voters werenít willing to trust Trump with the keys overall by denying him the popular vote (and taking away swaths of the GOP coalition in the Sunbelt and college educated areas).
Logged

Between Two Majorities

ďI die the king's faithful servant, but God's first.Ē -- St. Thomas More

"The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom." -- President George W. Bush

#NeverTrump Republican
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20731


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2017, 03:43:43 pm »
Ignore

...They force the creation of two grand coalitions to square off - usually, one ruling coalition and one minority coalition, as the states rarely change overnight (or in sufficient enough quantity to shift the College permanently; when they do, thatís a realignment). In turn, that creates a downballot effect of forcing grand coalitions to exist (ergo the Democrats and Republicans).

So would a non-Electoral College, including a popular vote system, have all those effects. As evidence, I present the vast majority of representative democracies around the world with other electoral systems, including many that have straight popular votes for president, and also have grand coalitions.

Quote
For instance, the Electoral College ratified Jeffersonís 1800 victory and the Southern Democrats, a coalition that lasted until 1860. Ditto Lincolnís Republicans until 1932. The Electoral College promotes long running ruling coalitions and minority coalitions to face off but with solid defined ideological parameters. Since the states themselves rarely change their political profile overnight, this promotes a stable political system and lessens upheavals and radical governments. I think that has been a key factor in promoting our stable politics.

There are many things wrong with the paragraph above. To begin with, as I mentioned, non-Electoral College systems also promote grand coalition. Second, prior to the 1820s most electors were chosen directly by state legislatures, so they are not analogous to the status quo electoral system, Electoral College or not. Third, the Jeffersonian coalition was not a Southern Democratic coalition, as the Democratic party did not exist at the time; Jefferson was a Republican. Fourth, that same coalition did not last until 1860; most historians recognize a break in 1824 which transitioned into the Second Party System in 1828-1832. Fifth, the same is true of the 1860-1932 period, as most historians recognize a break in 1896 that transitioned into the Fourth Party System. Sixth, the parties at the time did not have solidly defined ideological parameters. Congressional voting records from the time suggest very low polarization rates. Conservatives and progressives easily coexisted in both parties.

Quote
For instance, the New Deal was allowed to ferment for decades before it became a reality. The Electoral College incorporated the Populist Party into the Democratic and Republican Parties (and ultimately led to the 1912 election, where the Democrats incorporated all the Populist and progressive planks). We might have been worse off if in 1896, the Bryan Democratic Party had taken all the planks of silver and run as a radical party instead of the decades long transformation that allowed the progressives to refine and hone their agenda.

None of this was the result of the Electoral College however, as the winner of the popular vote also won the Electoral college in 1896 and 1912.

Quote
So, in that vein of thought, I think the Electoral College forces the creation of two grand coalitions that square off.

As mentioned above, a popular vote system would also force the same.

Quote
They allow the majority to rule for decades with checks and balances within the system and opposition from the minority coalition.

An Electoral College does not necessitate any checks and balances. For example, if you made Trump absolute ruler with the same powers as a totalitarian autocrat today, it would not necessitate getting rid of the Electoral College. There is absolutely no contradiction between the two. Rather, the separation of powers, the Constitution, the legislative filibuster, and other traditions and institutions believed in by American political culture represent checks and balances. All of these can either be strengthened or weakened and have no impact on the Electoral College.

Quote
Instead of one niche party ruling the country with 30-35% of the vote, we see coalitions ruling with, generally 45-55% of the vote. The College forces grand coalitions, and diffuses the power of radicals within the coalition.

A popular vote would not have 30-35% of the vote ruling the country; the entire point is that the popular vote winner, who usually has a much higher share of the vote, comes into office. It would also have no relationship with "the power of radicals."

Quote
I also have come to oppose IRV voting. Hereís the reason. Third parties have played an important part in American history, particularly in transitioning a minority coalition into becoming a majority coalition. The Populist Party of 1892, the Bull Moose Party of 1912, and the Progressive candidacy of Robert LaFollette all paved the way for the election of Franklin Roosevelt. Strom Thurmondís 1948 candidacy, George Wallaceís 1968 candidacy led to Reaganís 1980 realignment. Third parties are an important signal, especially to the minority coalition to incorporate their thinking and to take steps to become the majority coalition.

Actually, IRV would strengthen third parties, since people would be able to vote freely for third parties without fear that they are "throwing away their vote." Indeed, the importance of third parties is one of the strongest arguments in favor of switching to IRV over FPTP.

Quote
In short, I would change very little in the Electoral College or the way we elect Presidents. I think weíre near perfect. Redistricting might be another kettle of fish, but I oppose any changes to the Electoral College.

If your arguments were logical, this would follow, but your arguments are not reasonable. Therefore, you should change your position.

Quote
Lastly, a provocative thought. The Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, through the Electoral Collegeís mechanisms, must now review their ideology and platform to figure out how to appeal to 270+ worth of electoral votes and to appeal to a broad swath of states. That alone might create a workable progressive ideology.

Well, this is a statement of fact, but a workable progressive ideology could also be created under a popular vote system.
Logged

3D X 31
tmcusa2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4343
Sweden
View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2017, 03:48:11 pm »
Ignore

While I don't necessarily support it, there are good arguments for it. First of all the argument that it is not proportional is flawed in a sense. It is based on the Congress. Using logic against it, you would have to be in favor of making the Senate proportional as well.

More important, there would be no "safe" states where people who are afraid to vote third party, would be less inclined to vote third party since voting D or R in safe states is clearly a wasted vote. Thereby it would further cement the corrupt two party system.
Support IRV or approval voting which could help third parties and then worry about the electoral college.
Logged

I'd like to find a support group for internet addicts. The trouble is, they're all online.
 
"Spock you're the most cold-blooded man I've ever known."

"Why thank you Doctor"



help with posting:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=help;page=post#bbcref
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20731


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2017, 03:49:36 pm »
Ignore

I would also contend the Constitution worked out perfectly in 2016 in expressing the will of the voters and appropriately managing the winning and losing coalitions in 2016. And I would contend liberals and Democrats alike should continue to support the Electoral College and Constitution.  It would go a long way to stopping Trump.

Well these are a set of assertions, not a set of arguments that can be evaluated. Personally, I would be willing to seriously consider conceding Trump's re-election in exchange for switching to a national popular vote system. The former is a question of one individual, whereas the latter is one of fundamental equal rights.

Quote
IRV, for the record, might alleviate some of the damage done by ending the Electoral College - but I argue itís not worth it and doesnít solve the value of third parties helping the coalition blocs shift. Anyway, abandoning the Electoral College would allow the Trumpkins to abandon their fellow Republicans and create a third party that would win the election with 35-40% of the vote and maybe even rule in the House with a plurality. The electoral college at the moment forces the Trumpkins to work with normal Republicans in the same party, which is crippling them and styming them from governing.

The Electoral College has nothing to do with the House of Representatives. If the Trumpkins created a third party and tried to run in House elections, they would not be able to get a majority. Therefore, the Electoral College does not restrain the Trumpkins; the fact that they are only 35% of the population does.

Quote
Going forward, Trump must win more than his 46% of the vote to win re-election in 2020.

This is not necessarily true. Bill Clinton, for instance, won in 1992 with only 43% of the vote.

Quote
  That requires him to assemble a coalition and thatís going to be rather difficult. Democrats should embrace the Electoral College to stop Trump and to force the GOP to assemble a working majority coalition. If they canít, theyíll win the election. A ton of the GOPís problems right now is that their coalition is inherently unstable and in transition to becoming a minority coalition.  Thatís in part due to the Electoral College which has mandated a grand coalition to be able to form a government and thus is hobbling Donald Trump.

A grand coalition would also be required under a popular vote system, as I indicated in my previous post.

Quote
2016 demonstrated that Hillary Clinton didnít have the coalition needed to win the election (she clearly lost swaths of the Democratic minority coalition in the Upper Midwest) but it also showed that voters werenít willing to trust Trump with the keys overall by denying him the popular vote (and taking away swaths of the GOP coalition in the Sunbelt and college educated areas).

That is true, but it has nothing to do with the Electoral College, except that Hillary Clinton's coalition would have prevailed under a popular vote system. But that should have nothing to do with support for a popular vote. I don't support a popular vote as a Democrat or for any partisan reason; I support it because it is a fair and rational system, and the Electoral College is not. The constantly convoluted, shifting, and fuzzy/abstract arguments for keeping it only reinforce the open and shut case against it.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines