Why We Are A Republic, And Not A Democracy

The electoral college protects both small states AND swing states.

It incentivizes campaigning in swing states, and it gives more opportunities to small states to be at the forefront of presidential elections provided that the state can realistically be won by either candidate. Will the smallest states ever be at the complete center of attention in an election where there are bigger states that can also realistically be won by either candidate? Probably not. But that's not the point. The electoral college doesn't completely flip the script and give small states all the power, and it shouldn't do that. The electoral college provides a combination of popular representation, and state representation for every state.

You seem to want to completely eliminate the significance of state representation for purposes of presidential elections, and I disagree with that, as did the founders. And state representation sure as Hell helps the smaller states because popular representation does not. If there's anything that puts North Dakota on the same footing as California it's state representation. North Dakota gets the same amount of Senators as California does.

 

I see. You are still arguing for self-governance. I agree with you. I also agree with you that the system must count on each to act in their own interest to produce desired outcomes.

Where we part is your much stronger claim that the only reason that people support democracy is because they are takers and want to take from others. People donate anonymously all the time. People tip at restaurants they are never coming back to. People yell at cars driving too fast even when they themselves don’t have kids in that neighborhood. Heck, George W. Bush’s approval rating went to 90% after 911! That’s crazy if all anyone cares about is themselves.

Not even the architect of your self interest theory, Adam Smith, agreed that people are only takers, writing “Man desires not only to be loved, but to be lovely.”

 

Sorry, what? North Carolina is the state where Dems would best spend their time, because it's the second largest of the swing states.

Your question doesn't make much sense because you originally proposed it as California versus Iowa versus North Carolina. California is not a swing state, so the two Democrats would spend more time in NC. Which is what happens. Population is what drives this. It always has.

 

I think your premise that this system better incentivizes presidential candidates to visit low EV states is flawed on two fronts:

1) They don't. Candidates don't spend much if any time in North Dakota, or Idaho, or Rhode Island.
2) The softening of state power isn't really a huge factor at the electoral college level anyway. Your entire state's EVs is based on population. And even in low population states that's almost always centralized in their large(r) cities.

 

Perhaps not all people support it selfishly, however it doesn't take much of a % to decide elections. Our country unfortunately requires nothing to vote. You no longer have to be a property owner, you don't have to pay taxes, you don't have to finish HS, you just have to exist. In my opinion this is a huge mistake and is the reason a democracy won't work in modern America. A democracy requires a population who is educated (actually educated, in things like critical thinking, problem solving, basic economics and finance. Not lbgt studies or a BA in communications) and who contributes.

Next time you think democracy is a good idea go people watch at Walmart or your local mall food court. I tremble at the thought of those people voting in elections that decide the future of our country. They're not bad people, and they deserve a good life, but they are not at a level to make those decisions.

If you ever wonder why the deficit is massive and our government spends it's time trying to expand the child tax credit or figuring out ways to shrink the tax base rather than solving our problems, like the huge deficit, broken social security, crumbling infrastructure, terrible school system, etc.... Just remember these people all vote. You think the people at Walmart vote for slightly higher taxes, higher SS ages and income tax caps, infrastructure repair and education reform? Or do you think they vote for free money (sorry, child tax credits), lower taxes (they already pay $0) and against whatever virtue signaling Boogeyman their side of the political spectrum is using to scare them?

 

A ton of people work for corporations like Walmart, and are frequently convinced to vote for their interests over their own more immediate ones in many cases because you know, they figure its good for their job, and there is plenty of reinforcement of that idea in and outside of work. I mean people actually believe the rich create jobs! They are skeptical of unions that would actually improve their pay and benefits (not to mention the government doing those things). People believe the deficit is important or somehow effects them. Propaganda (for lack of a better word) works! If it were as easy as "free money" we could have ended capitalism or had a robust welfare state a long time ago.

 

Every single time you asked for clarification, that was the definition provided. Why do you continue to insist it means something different than everyone using it tells you it means?

 

Absolute freedom isn't possible unless you live on an island by yourself that doesn't belong to a country. It's all degrees of freedom. If you find yourself on that island with a wife and kids, no freedom for you buddy.

 

Maybe some do Phil, but I believe its an interesting debate to be had regardless of the times.

The debate about whats good for California may not be good for Montana is the winning argument for me.

I see the EC as handicaps in golf. It actually gives a state (as a whole) a fair opportunity to compete in the process.

It lets me compete with Jordan Spieth for 18 holes.

Otherwise the needs of Montana just get beat by 60 strokes every time they tee off.

I think the timing of this conversation is more relevant based on the recent EC debates I have seen than they are about who is winning.

 

The difference between what you are doing and what they are doing is that you want to have a discussion about what is best for the country. They are just trying to shift the narrative about who we are as a country.

I'm always down for a discussion about the relative merits of the EC and how we protect the interests of the smaller states and avoid them being run over by the larger states. It is an important aspect of how our government is set up.

 

Two big problems:

1. Nobody cares about Montana in Presidential Elections, so they lose to other states. While nobody cares about California either, they essentially just lose to Pennsylvania and Michigan. If you are in Montana, nobody cares about winning your vote under EC.

2. It turns everybody into essentially the state. It suggests that the interests of the state are the interests of the individual. If I live in Montana, my interests may have very little to do with most people in Montana. This is how political herding is occurring. Those with minority interests in a state are completely unimportant to anything occuring in the state. So they leave and states begin to become more and more extreme due to a lack of diversity in interests, which eventually makes them less diverse economically, culturally, etc.

 

The less populated states get one handicap given that all states get two U.S. Senators. The Electoral College gives less populated states yet another advantage given that Republican presidents have only won the popular vote one time since 1988. SCOTUS would look quite different if Trump didn't get to appoint a third of the current Court despite losing the popular vote, and of course the Court's makeup affects cases addressing voting, gerrymandering, and other issues. This is the way our system is set up, but there's nothing that requires a constitutional republic to give these structural advantages to lesser populated states. The practical effect in modern politics at least is that Democrats have to out-perform and beat the spread to even be competitive nationally. It's a strange set up.

 

Anyone thats defending a system where my vote counting way more in 2008 vs. 2024 as Florida has become less swingy has an ulterior motive or has no respect for basic democratic ideals, like "one man one vote." I get that it's basically the only chance Republicans have to win a presidential election right now in their hard-right form, so I'd have much more respect if people owned up to that rather than the tired, ahistorical stuff about protecting "small states." Like, if you admit it, nothing is going to happen. That wont end the electoral college lol.

 

That's what I tend to think. In Congress where they're making laws, the smaller states get a disproportional advantage in order to even things out. At least in the Senate.
But why should they get to choose the president, despite having fewer residents? And that's what we're talking about in a national election, not Florida vs. Georgia, not California vs. Wyoming. We're talking about all Americans voting and choosing their leader.
Why should some have so much more power?

 

I grew up being taught it was to protect smaller states. As an adult, I have read some say that slavery was a key factor in instituting the EC. I haven't studied that enough to know but sure some here have done so and can weigh in on that aspect.

 

So your point is that all else being equal, if both states are swing states, they’re going to pick the larger state?

That’s not exactly a revelation. I never said this isn’t the case. My point is the electoral college protects the interests of small states a heck of a lot more than a popular vote system, which is true. Ask California how much those two extra electors mean to them from their Senate seats, then ask the same thing of North Dakota. That's a 67% increase in electors for North Dakota. That's a 3.64% increase for California.

 

"Of the swing states" is also doing a lot of work there.

If the US only had two swing states in North Dakota and South Dakota, that wouldn't actually be saying a lot about population size now would it? If anything it would actually prove my point.

North Carolina is worth about half as many electoral votes as Florida, which is tied for the third larges state.

Also, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania all say hello.

Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania all went to Obama in 2012, yet they all went to Trump in 2016.

Georgia has been Republican for a long time, but now looks like more of a swing state than Florida.

 

Well, yes, this is the hypothetical you presented to me.

Then I have to be honest, I have no idea what the Iowa versus California versus NC was supposed to be saying.

It doesn't do much but produce a plurality around popular votes. North Dakota has 3 EVs. All 3 go to the winner of the popular vote.

 

This is the key: balance of interests. That is supposed to be what checks and balances are about. The Senate is supposed to protect the interests of the state. The problem is that the interests of the state have completely unbalanced the system in their favor. The House was supposed to represent the population, but gerrymandering has meant that it now represents the interests of the state. And the EC has made it so that the President is selected by interests of the states as well. There isn't a single branch of the government that represents the interests of the individual.

And because of that, we are starting to see people choosing where they live based upon matching their interests to the state's interests. Political herding may sound benign but it is legitimately one of the most unbalancing effects in society. It creates more and more extreme states that have less and less in common.

 

I think the fact that Wyoming gets 2 senators and California gets 2 senators is more than enough of a handicap to help even things out for the small states. Presidential elections should be based on the popular vote. The EC is undemocratic, put in place in part because the founders didn't trust the people to elect a president directly.