Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Presidential Election Process => Topic started by: McGovernForPrez on May 16, 2017, 09:26:20 PM



Title: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: McGovernForPrez on May 16, 2017, 09:26:20 PM
How many of us are there. Share your reasoning for supporting it despite what it has done to our past candidates.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Shameless Lefty Hack on May 17, 2017, 02:27:53 AM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on May 17, 2017, 02:39:06 AM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on May 17, 2017, 03:23:02 AM
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


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: McGovernForPrez on May 17, 2017, 10:59:43 AM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: VPH on May 17, 2017, 12:58:55 PM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on May 17, 2017, 02:53:41 PM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Shameless Lefty Hack on May 18, 2017, 02:00:35 AM
@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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on May 18, 2017, 02:21:06 PM
@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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Strudelcutie4427 on May 18, 2017, 04:45:02 PM
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


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on May 18, 2017, 05:26:53 PM
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!


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: PregnantChad on May 18, 2017, 06:17:49 PM
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).


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: PregnantChad on May 18, 2017, 09:49:35 PM
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! :)  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


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: ApatheticAustrian on May 20, 2017, 07:20:40 AM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers on May 22, 2017, 02:42:36 PM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Figueira on May 25, 2017, 03:49:04 PM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Figueira on May 25, 2017, 03:55:30 PM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Figueira on May 25, 2017, 04:00:46 PM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: 7,052,770 on May 30, 2017, 08:43:56 PM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: catographer on May 30, 2017, 09:27:47 PM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: The_Doctor on June 28, 2017, 03:05:13 PM
I oppose changes to the Electoral College. I’m going to lay out why and it’s 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, that’s 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 Jefferson’s 1800 victory and the Southern Democrats, a coalition that lasted until 1860. Ditto Lincoln’s 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. Here’s 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 Thurmond’s 1948 candidacy, George Wallace’s 1968 candidacy led to Reagan’s 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 we’re near perfect. Redistricting might be another kettle of fish, but I oppose any changes to the Electoral College.

(Also, I’m  a registered anti-Trump Republican).

Lastly, a provocative thought. The Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, through the Electoral College’s 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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: The_Doctor on June 28, 2017, 03:32:12 PM
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 it’s not worth it and doesn’t 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 that’s 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 can’t, they’ll win the election. A ton of the GOP’s problems right now is that their coalition is inherently unstable and in transition to becoming a minority coalition.  That’s 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 didn’t 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 weren’t 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).


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on June 28, 2017, 03:43:43 PM
...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.

Quote
For instance, the Electoral College ratified Jefferson’s 1800 victory and the Southern Democrats, a coalition that lasted until 1860. Ditto Lincoln’s 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. Here’s 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 Thurmond’s 1948 candidacy, George Wallace’s 1968 candidacy led to Reagan’s 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 we’re 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 College’s 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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: °Leprechaun on June 28, 2017, 03:48:11 PM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on June 28, 2017, 03:49:36 PM
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 it’s not worth it and doesn’t 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 that’s 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 can’t, they’ll win the election. A ton of the GOP’s problems right now is that their coalition is inherently unstable and in transition to becoming a minority coalition.  That’s 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 didn’t 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 weren’t 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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on June 28, 2017, 03:55:00 PM
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.

Quote
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.\

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.

Quote
Support IRV or approval voting which could help third parties and then worry about the electoral college.

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


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: The_Doctor on June 28, 2017, 04:12:07 PM
Quote
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.

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.

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.

Let's break your argument down. I've already addressed the first part. To your second part, for 200 years, we've had states elect the President through the College and the legislatures prior to the 1820s were selected by the people, so presumably, the state legislatures represented the will of the people. (there were no, by the way, popular vote losers who won the electoral college from 1792 to 1820).

Third, no, there's a reason for this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson–Jackson_Day). That's because Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson are widely understood to be the founders of the Democratic Party. The Democratic - Republicans became the Democrats, while the Whigs and Federalists later became the Republicans. So I'm not wrong. Fourth, I contend that Jackson continued the Jeffersonian agrarian frontiersman ideology. If you look at Jefferson and Jackson, they held roughly the same ideology. The D-R may have transitioned to becoming the Democratic Party, but I do contend that Jackson continued Jeffersonian ideology and thus, I don't see that as much of a break. Again, the same holds for McKinley and Lincoln; McKinley continued the Lincoln Republican hegemony (while emphasizing the industrial aspect). As to your last part, I have defined the parties many times here so I won't rehash it - suffice it to say, the parties at the time were largely focused on a certain ideology. Where I differ from historians is seeing the break.

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.

Here, you uh, miss the whole point of my paragraph about the role of third parties integrating into the New Deal coalition.

I'm skipping over the next few because I think it's extraneous.

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."

Uh, Beet, a popular vote winner is not necessarily 51%. With many different parties, a popular vote winner can be as little as 35% of the vote. We've seen many parties achieve that and yet become a ruling party.  That's been seen many times and that empowers radicals to carve out strong positions. That's not really in dispute ...

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

No. I've defended my positions, thank you.

Quote
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.

I think that if you look at American elections dating to 1800, that the Electoral College has done a decent job of expressing the national will and the strengths of the coalitions that won / lost the election.

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.

Actually, the Electoral College, logically, forces the Trumpkins into the grand GOP coalition. Arguably, if you demanded the President were only elected with a plurality of the popular vote rather than needing to win certain states, you could in theory elect a President with 35% of the vote and if the opposition was splintered, his party could take a majority. The requirement to hit 270 in the Electoral College, in my view, creates a domino effect that creates a two party system.

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

And won 49% in the re-election. But by virtue of Trump's popular vote loss, to win re-election, as the incumbent, he probably has to expand his coalition to survive in the Electoral College. I don't think he can squeak by with a 46% plurality again. The system seems to put a lot of emphasis on the incumbent party assembling a strong enough coalition to win election and re-election (via the Electoral College).

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

I admit a parliamentary system is probably feasible, but I don't necessarily agree that we must transition to one. I think the American system works just fine. Why change it if it's broken?

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.

I oppose the abolition of the Electoral College because I believe strongly that as I said, it encourages stability, it creates two coalitions, rather than niche third parties. For instance, it's more feasible to have two parties rather than many different parties. For instance, a Green party candidate can't win the Presidency with 35% if the other parties split; he needs 45-51%, which dilutes the radical agenda he might hold. Which I think is a virtue, not a vice.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on June 28, 2017, 04:27:45 PM
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.

Quote
Let's break your argument down. I've already addressed the first part.

And I've counter-addressed it.

Quote
To your second part, for 200 years, we've had states elect the President through the College and the legislatures prior to the 1820s were selected by the people, so presumably, the state legislatures represented the will of the people.

There's no basis for that presumption, however.

Quote
Third, no, there's a reason for this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson–Jackson_Day). That's because Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson are widely understood to be the founders of the Democratic Party.

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.

Quote
The Democratic - Republicans became the Democrats, while the Whigs and Federalists later became the Republicans. So I'm not wrong.

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.

Quote
Fourth, I contend that Jackson continued the Jeffersonian agrarian frontiersman ideology. If you look at Jefferson and Jackson, they held roughly the same ideology. The D-R may have transitioned to becoming the Democratic Party, but I do contend that Jackson continued Jeffersonian ideology and thus, I don't see that as much of a break. Again, the same holds for McKinley and Lincoln; McKinley continued the Lincoln Republican hegemony (while emphasizing the industrial aspect). As to your last part, I have defined the parties many times here so I won't rehash it - suffice it to say, the parties at the time were largely focused on a certain ideology. Where I differ from historians is seeing the break.

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.

Quote
Here, you uh, miss the whole point of my paragraph about the role of third parties integrating into the New Deal coalition.

That does not change without the Electoral College, however.

Quote
Uh, Beet, a popular vote winner is not necessarily 51%. With many different parties, a popular vote winner can be as little as 35% of the vote. We've seen many parties achieve that and yet become a ruling party.  That's been seen many times and that empowers radicals to carve out strong positions. That's not really in dispute ...

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.

Quote
No. I've defended my positions, thank you.

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

Quote
I think that if you look at American elections dating to 1800, that the Electoral College has done a decent job of expressing the national will and the strengths of the coalitions that won / lost the election.

I disagree.

Quote
Actually, the Electoral College, logically, forces the Trumpkins into the grand GOP coalition. Arguably, if you demanded the President were only elected with a plurality of the popular vote rather than needing to win certain states, you could in theory elect a President with 35% of the vote and if the opposition was splintered, his party could take a majority. The requirement to hit 270 in the Electoral College, in my view, creates a domino effect that creates a two party system.

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

Quote
And won 49% in the re-election. But by virtue of Trump's popular vote loss, to win re-election, as the incumbent, he probably has to expand his coalition to survive in the Electoral College. I don't think he can squeak by with a 46% plurality again. The system seems to put a lot of emphasis on the incumbent party assembling a strong enough coalition to win election and re-election (via the Electoral College).

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.

Quote
I admit a parliamentary system is probably feasible, but I don't necessarily agree that we must transition to one. I think the American system works just fine. Why change it if it's broken?

Because it is broken.


Quote
I oppose the abolition of the Electoral College because I believe strongly that as I said, it encourages stability, it creates two coalitions, rather than niche third parties. For instance, it's more feasible to have two parties rather than many different parties. For instance, a Green party candidate can't win the Presidency with 35% if the other parties split; he needs 45-51%, which dilutes the radical agenda he might hold. Which I think is a virtue, not a vice.

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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: The_Doctor on June 28, 2017, 04:45:09 PM
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
There's no basis for that presumption, however.

Not really useful to our central argument; so I'm not going to deal with this. The evidence is that since record keeping began in 1820s and the states voted to send electors as a bloc, the College has done a very good job in forcing coalitions.

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.

That ... that's not true. If you look at the election maps of 1800 and 1828, the Jefferson - Jackson maps are fairly consistent and similar, rooted in the South. The Democratic Party was rooted in the Southern frontiersman populists and farmers. You'll notice Jefferson and Jackson won the most westernmost frontiers states as well. So you're wrong.

The Democratic Party honors him as an ideological founder the same way the Republicans honor Lincoln. His death date does not factor into the argument.

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.

That's not accurate. The Democratic-Republicans split into two groups because they had absorbed everyone after the death of the Federalists. But the Whigs were from the Federalists and later became the GOP. The Democrats expanded their coalition in 1828 under the new laws but they weren't intrinsically different from Jefferson's Democratic-Republican coalition.

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

Beet, have you considered that your points don't have anything to do with the College and you tend to digress? I've been rebutting your digressions because they're interesting, but you keep thinking they're centered around your main point. They're not. 

I've defended the Jefferson-Jackson thing here, anyway.

Quote
That does not change without the Electoral College, however. ... That is true, but you can hit 270 with 35% of the vote as well.

Read the point again. And read what I've said about the Electoral College in this thread. Or read the answer below the next quoted block.

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

Let me explain this. The popular vote by itself allows you to win with 35% alone. The EC forces you to create a coalition that by nature facing a singular opposing coalition - that by definition raises your popular vote floor to above 35% to avoid a House vote. It's a bad idea to require our votes to (in my view) be at a minimum of 35%; the EC kind of raises the floor.

The rest of your statements are kind of just "I think therefore I am right" statements so I'm not addressing them. I think I've addressed the main thrust of your arguments.

Let's just stick to why the EC is essential versus why not.




Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on June 28, 2017, 05:01:56 PM
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.

Quote
Not really useful to our central argument...Beet, have you considered that your points don't have anything to do with the College and you tend to digress? I've been rebutting your digressions because they're interesting, but you keep thinking they're centered around your main point. They're not.

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.

Quote
Let me explain this. The popular vote by itself allows you to win with 35% alone. The EC forces you to create a coalition that by nature facing a singular opposing coalition - that by definition raises your popular vote floor to above 35% to avoid a House vote. It's a bad idea to require our votes to (in my view) be at a minimum of 35%; the EC kind of raises the floor.

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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: The_Doctor on June 28, 2017, 05:17:02 PM
Quote
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.

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.

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.

Well, remember that not every state will see 33%. In fact, you will get wildly varying figures in different states (1912 is a good example of this). So, usually, the EC will mean that you will probably organize and have two parties at roughly 80-100% of the vote. The EC probably means that to avoid a House runoff, you try to maximise your vote, and that leads to coalitions.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on June 28, 2017, 05:26:45 PM
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
Well, remember that not every state will see 33%. In fact, you will get wildly varying figures in different states (1912 is a good example of this). So, usually, the EC will mean that you will probably organize and have two parties at roughly 80-100% of the vote. The EC probably means that to avoid a House runoff, you try to maximise your vote, and that leads to coalitions.

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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on June 28, 2017, 06:31:48 PM
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
Well, remember that not every state will see 33%. In fact, you will get wildly varying figures in different states (1912 is a good example of this). So, usually, the EC will mean that you will probably organize and have two parties at roughly 80-100% of the vote. The EC probably means that to avoid a House runoff, you try to maximise your vote, and that leads to coalitions.

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.
Yup. (
). With 284 electoral votes, too.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on June 28, 2017, 06:58:51 PM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on June 28, 2017, 07:01:40 PM
Nevada is very, very, very close in this (33.08%-33.04%), and almost certainly spoiled.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: The_Doctor on June 29, 2017, 12:34:02 AM
Beet, I don't know how else I can explain my position, so we'll agree to disagree.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on June 29, 2017, 06:11:23 AM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Beet on June 29, 2017, 06:13:05 AM
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.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner on June 29, 2017, 01:05:47 PM
Margins on that map
Nevada: Wilson 33.08%, Roosevelt 33.04% (.04%)
Delaware: Wilson 38.73%, Taft 36.72% (2.01%)
West Virginia: Wilson 35.09%, Roosevelt 32.93% (2.16%)
New York: Wilson 34.39%, Taft 32.12% (2.27%)
Arizona: Wilson 36.27%, Roosevelt 32.92% (3.35%)
Nebraska: Wilson 36.41%, Roosevelt 32.77% (3.64%)
Ohio: Wilson 34.13%, Taft 30.23% (3.90%)
Colorado: Wilson 35.67%, Roosevelt 30.66% (5.01%)
Missouri: Wilson 39.46%, Taft 33.70% (5.76%)
Indiana: Wilson 35.89%, Roosevelt 28.34% (7.55%)
New York is the tipping point state (without WV, NV, and DE, wilson gets 266 electoral votes with roughly 33.5% of the vote.)


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Slander and/or Libel on October 19, 2017, 09:28:41 AM
This debate was interesting and maddening, but none of it even began to touch on the elephant in the room: winner take all electoral votes. Sure, there's a population disparity, but the real source of almost all of the disparity in the Electoral College is the fact that electoral votes are winner take all.

Also, when The_Doctor said that the Electoral College did a decent job of reflecting the national will, by what metric was he measuring? I see a lot of people defend the popular vote by saying that it usually matches the popular vote. Why would that even matter unless the popular vote were a good standard to use, in which case, why not just use it?


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Mr. Smith on January 16, 2018, 06:22:23 PM
Really, the EC should reformed to fit the population proportions and NOT by Congressional Districts. Virtual ties could see the winner take the remaining votes left.



Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: President Punxsutawney Phil on January 16, 2018, 06:25:42 PM
I think it's best if we change nothing except for adding a pool of 100 EVs that go to the popular vote. It's a sensible compromise.


Title: Re: Democrats who support the electoral college
Post by: Former President tack50 on January 22, 2018, 01:11:27 PM
This debate was interesting and maddening, but none of it even began to touch on the elephant in the room: winner take all electoral votes. Sure, there's a population disparity, but the real source of almost all of the disparity in the Electoral College is the fact that electoral votes are winner take all.

Also, when The_Doctor said that the Electoral College did a decent job of reflecting the national will, by what metric was he measuring? I see a lot of people defend the popular vote by saying that it usually matches the popular vote. Why would that even matter unless the popular vote were a good standard to use, in which case, why not just use it?

Yup, this is the real issue; electoral votes should be allocated in a proportional basis at the state level. Though that means that more elections would go to the House. In fact 2016 would have gone to the house; the results would be:

Trump 267
Clinton 265
Johnson 3
Stein 1
McMullin 1

Similarly doing a quick count for 2000 it would also go to the house:

Bush 261
Gore 263
Nader 12