Why We Are A Republic, And Not A Democracy

This is ... not the definition of democracy. We do in fact live in a democracy.

 

And not that it matters, but elections of the people who make the budgets are not only made democratically, but via direct democracy.

 

"Voting is bad because people may vote for a government philosophy that's different than mine."

 

Saying "we live in a democracy" is about as accurate as saying "we live under a capitalist economic system."

We value principles of democracy and capitalism, but normally when people say "we don't live under democracy," it's a situation involving individual rights or the electoral college, which are both overt hedges against the flaws of democracy.

 

If you are suggesting a popular vote system, such a system would hurt Wyoming and North Dakota a Hell of a lot more than the electoral college system.

But yes, smart electoral strategy calls for campaigning in swing states under the electoral college system, not California or Nebraska.

Do you have a better system in mind that protects small states more than the electoral college system that also balances the interests of state representation and popular representation?

 

It's clear who the problem is, it's not clear who you're talking about. For all I know, you disagree with me as to who the problem is. You may think it encompasses a much broader group of people, which I suspect to be the case.

 

I told you what the better system is. The Electoral College doesn't protect small states. Wyoming and North Dakota are irrelevant in the EC. They're no more relevant in that system than they would be in a popular vote.

 

Who do you think the problem is?

 

Let me try asking another way: How do you account for state representation under a popular vote system?

Aren't you really just pushing campaigns towards areas with high population density, small towns (or states) be damned?

 

You're pushing campaigns to wherever their voters are.

 

When people talk about "MAGA Republicans" as "threats to democracy" who I think that should mean is people who support achieving political ends through violent means, and people who support(ed) trying to influence electors to essentially overturn the results of a state based on a phone call from Donald Trump, and people who support the Vice President picking and choosing which ballots to count under his/her ceremonial role of counting the votes.

Now, I happen to think America's institution's are incredibly strong. I think it takes a Hell of a lot more than a handful of jackasses to overturn that system. So I think the term "threat to democracy" is a little excessive. Do I think we should make efforts to strengthen that system in the form of clarifying the VP's role in ceremonially counting the votes? Absolutely. Do I think that our "uniter in chief" should choose wiser words than "MAGA Republicans" when talking about the people I mentioned above? Also yes. When people hear "MAGA Republicans" they reasonably think they mean everyone who supported Donald Trump.

 

You're pushing campaigns towards areas with more people.

Why would anyone campaign in the state of North Dakota ever when the entire STATE has about 800,000 people while the CITY of New York has about 8.5 million?

 

Why would a Presidential candidate campaign in North Dakota under the current system? It's not a swing state, and it barely has any EC votes. The campaigns will go to where their voters are.

 

It's a better system to entice politicians to go to states that can realistically go either way, than to entice politicians to go to areas that just happen to have the highest population density.

If North Dakota becomes a swing state (no reason it cannot, just change people's minds), then presidential candidates are more likely to spend some time there, and they are FAR more likely to go there in such a case than one without the electoral college, or one where state representation does not matter.

 

But they don't. They go to states that can realistically go either way with large populations.

 

Is it better strategy for a Democratic presidential candidate to campaign in California or Iowa or North Carolina?

Just because politicians are still generally attracted to areas with large populations all else being equal, doesn't mean going to a popular vote system wouldn't make that problem much worse.

 

I don't think you read both clauses of my post.

 

I did. Does Iowa have a large population?

I'd say North Carolina is mid-sized with some large cities, but not comparable to Florida, New York, California, or Texas.

 

North Dakota isn't becoming a swing state, and politicians aren't going to spend time there. You tried to make this about protecting small states. But the Electoral College doesn't do that. Now, you're saying it protects swing states. I'm not sure how protecting swing states is more valuable than making politicians seek out their voters where they are.

All it does is hand a disproportionate amount of power and attention to a small group of states. And in doing so, it renders a ton of voters irrelevant, which unsurprisingly leads to voter apathy. Why should 6 million Republicans in California be irrelevant?

 

I'll give you the reason it cannot: there is no incentive to trying to change people's minds under the EC system. Because moving a state from 70%-30% to 60%-40% in the same direction has absolutely no effect. So why would you invest in it as a rational political party trying to win elections? Much better to spend that same effort and money on the 200th ad seen by a resident of Pennsylvania, which will have a very low marginal effect, but whose marginal effect isn't non-existent.

And much like major brands promote in small areas and large areas, as promoting in small areas is cheaper to account for the lower population, you would see campaigns do the same. Would the Presidential candidate go there? Probably not. But you might see the VP's spouse. Or a major surrogate. At the very minimum, you might get a TV interview on the local news. More than they get now.