Democrats who support the electoral college

[Beet]

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.

[Beet]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Beet]

@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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Beet]

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!

[Beet]

...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, that’s 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Beet]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Beet]

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.

Well, the Congress is not proportional either, but it is not really based on the Congress, since it is winner-take-all by state, whereas Congressional delegations are elected by district. It is not true that if you argue in favor of one type of election to be proportional (such as the presidency), you have to argue in favor of all other institutions being proportional as well (such as the Senate). By that logic, if you support Governors being elected statewide by the popular vote, you would have to support state legislatures being proportional as well, and many people don't think that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That assumes that there are no people who would be more inclined to vote third party since the chance of their vote being the deciding vote drops dramatically. For every voter who refrains from voting third party due to no longer being in a safe state, another voter might vote third party due to the vastly expanded single electorate. In any case, this is a good argument in favor of IRV.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IRV should be supported, but it doesn't necessitate opposing getting rid of the electoral college in the meantime.

[Beet]

I don't necessarily agree that we would be better off switching to another system. For instance, in the recent British elections, the Parliament was hung because May couldn't gain a majority. She was reliant on a small North Irish party that most people hadn't even voted for to attain her majority. These niche parties holding power the way they do without being backed by the people, in my view, is a bad idea. It may work, but I don't necessarily like the idea of small parties holding the balance of power to dictate national policy. I think shoehorning minor coalitions into the grand coalition is a better way to set national policy.

That may well be the case, but even if so, it has nothing to do with the Electoral College, as the president is a single individual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I've counter-addressed it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's no basis for that presumption, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thomas Jefferson is the founder of the Democratic Party in the same way Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy. In other words, he wasn't. We know this because he died in 1826 and the Democratic Party wasn't founded until 1828. What Democrats mean is that he is a figurative founder of the party by being a predecessor with similar politics. But that does not mean that his coalition was the same as Jackson's coalition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Democratic-Republicans split, and only some became Democrats. Others became Whigs. It's true that the Democratic-Republicans and the Democrats came from the same political lineage, but the Democrats' coalition, under a massively expanded franchise, was different from what came before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true, but having a similar ideology does not mean having the same coalition. Bernie Sanders and Lyndon Johnson have a similar ideology, but very different coalitions. In any case, even if your original point were true, it would have nothing to do with the Electoral College.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That does not change without the Electoral College, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said it's necessarily 51%. Under a runoff or IRV system, the popular vote winner necessarily has a majority of the vote. But even under a single-stage popular vote, there is no threshold below which it is possible for a winner to fall, that is not also possible for a winner to fall under the Electoral College system. A winner can win with 35% of the vote under the Electoral College system, as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well you have now, but I've rebutted them again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is true, but you can hit 270 with 35% of the vote as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He does not necessarily have to expand his coalition. He would win with 46% again. Obviously no one can predict the future, but what we can say with certainty is that it's well within possibility in the Electoral College system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it is broken.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But you have presented no logical arguments to show why it encourages stability, or creates two coalitions. Some of your statements have been true, but would also be true under a popular vote system. You can definitely win the Presidency with 35% of the vote if the other parties split, under an Electoral College system.

[Beet]

Uh, the point, Beet, was that the Electoral College creates the need for broad coalitions, not for a narrow majority + requiring you to appeal to a crazy North Irish party. The problem, in my view, with parliamentary systems (and I'm not deriding them, they work fine) is that I'm not comfortable with a coalition being assembled that wasn't necessarily what voters wanted. I prefer to get what I voted for, not necessarily vote for a niche party and hope that I get into a coalition that will achieve some of my goals.

But the larger point is that the EC forces the creation of two parties. Indeed, in most parliamentary democracies, there are multiple parties. For the sake of our argument, we should stick to the American democratic experiment, however.

I'm not saying we should switch to a parliamentary democracy, I'm saying we should switch to national popular vote. The two-party system is as alive and well in gubernatorial elections, where there is no electoral college and governors are elected by the popular vote, as it is in presidential elections. You keep asserting it's the EC that forces the creation of two parties, but you haven't been able to defend that point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's fair enough. I won't respond to the points about history then, since I agree they're digressions. We'll agree to disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It does? If you win 33% of every state, and three other candidates get about 22% each, then you win the electoral college with at least 535 electoral votes, no? Maybe we just disagree about facts, but I'm pretty sure this is how it is. The EC doesn't force a floor.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought I did.

I am arguing the Electoral College, by dint of how it is constructed, requires the creation of two broad coalitions. Why? It's pretty simple. It's more efficient to have two parties in every state advocating one presidential candidate. It's easier than the Green Party of Massachusetts, the Socialist Party of California, and the Democratic Party of Georgia holding multiple conventions to agree on the same candidate for the Left and the Constitution Party of Idaho, the Southern Evangelical Republican Party of Florida, and the Libertarian Party of Texas joining to nominate a conservative candidate.

Therefore, by dint of agreeing on a presidential candidate, it's just easier to organize downballot with a Republican and Democratic candidate rather than multiple candidates. It makes very little logistical sense to not organize with the same Presidential candidate (who would be the President and leading that coalition). I think that the Electoral College reinforces and creates this dynamic.

The Electoral College does not reinforce this dynamic. As evidence, let us do a thought experiment and remove the Electoral College. Is it suddenly efficient for the Green Party of Massachusetts, the Socialist Party of California, and the Democratic Party of Georgia to organize separately? Or the Constitution Party of Idaho, the Southern Evangelical Republican Party of Florida, and the Libertarian Party of Texas? No, it is not. It is still not efficient. You still must organize nationally in order to win. This is true in a national popular vote system, as well. Once again, let's take the analogy for gubernatorial elections. Do you see the Constitution Party of Loudon County, Virginia, the Libertarian Party of Tidwater, Virginia, and the Nationalist Party of Roanoke, Virginia, organizing separately? No, you don't. To the extent that third parties run for governor, they still organize statewide. There are still broadly two coalitions for the 2017 Virginia governor's election. Putting a "college" of unelected electors between the voter and the outcome doesn't change this aspect of the calculus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well true, but you don't need 535, either. 1912 is a perfectly good example... Wilson won despite having only 42% of the vote, and it is very likely (although I haven't done the calculation) that he would have won if you dropped him to 35% of the vote and split the 7% drop-off between TR and Taft. That would prove my point that you can easily win with just 35% of the vote in the EC system, as well.

[Beet]

Beet, I don't know how else I can explain my position, so we'll agree to disagree.

You don't have to? You explained a position, and I rebutted it. I can't make you change your mind, I can only show that your arguments are illogical as presented.

[Beet]

280, actually.
Map

Woodrow Wilson/Thomas R. Marshall: 34.87%, 280
Theodore Roosevelt/Hiram W. Johnson: 30.89%, 176
William Taft/Nicholas Butler: 26.66%, 75
He would have had to do about a point worse to lose, too.

Interesting. I figured as much since he won in 1916 without New York.