Why We Are A Republic, And Not A Democracy

Thing is, if the system required that party to win the popular vote, it would change its strategy to do so.

 

Hm, it's almost as if this was what I said that you've been vehemently fighting:

Remember when I said you didn't read both clauses of my initial post?

1. "states that can realistically go either way"
and
2. "with large populations"

Like, this post of yours above is literally saying exactly what I wrote to you and you're bending over backwards to argue points I haven't made instead of saying "yeah, I guess you're right."

 

Lots to unpack here, but I agree with you that a constitution is critical to successful governance and free for all majority rule cannot work. Buchanan and Tullock made a strong argument for this in The Calculus of Consent, largely based on the idea that if everyone gets a single vote, strength of preferences cannot be evaluated. So even if you want something really badly, your vote can be nullified by my coin flip on an issue where I have nothing at stake.

One liberal solution is to confine single outcome votes to the smallest possible sector of society, ie public goods where one size must fit all, like size of military. Don’t vote on how big of a national post office we need, because we don’t need a national post office at all.

That said, once we do need to vote on something, there are good reasons to include everyone. First, web’s moral argument that everyone should have a say because it’s the right thing. This is especially important if you have a model of strong self-interest, because then you can confidently expect the landowners to discriminate against the non-voting populace.

But there is another reason to include all in voting: we don’t have a criterion for validity of ideas. As a result, we will never be able to pick a group that will include the good voters and exclude the bad ones, because we don’t know what is good or bad. In fact, we have reason to suggest that more diversity in electorate will lead to better outcomes. Even JS Mill recognized the value of diverse perspectives: “It's hardly possible to overstate the value, in the present state of human improvement, of placing human beings in contact with other persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they are familiar. Such communication has always been... one of the primary sources of progress.”

So I (1) absolutely take your criticism, but (2) cannot see how any other approach wouldn’t introduce even more serious flaws to the system.

 

Then why complain about it? To be fair, I think you're more disappointed with the "winner-take-all" aspect of the electoral college than anything, and I get that. But I disagree.

And I think that limited number of people in a popular vote system would just shift from swing state metropolises to big state metropolises. That's a system you would prefer, not one I would prefer. Fortunately, we live in America and everyone is entitled to an opinion.

 

I already quoted all of the times you changed your argument in another post, I'm not doing it again.

You saying something is disingenuous doesn't make it disingenuous.

 

Wow, congratulations, I conceded that reasonable minds can believe North Carolina is large state.

If you're stupid enough to believe that this was the central point of this whole discussion, I really was wasting my time with you. It was a poor example that I could have chosen better. That's it.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how exactly Florida gets to 29 electoral votes. You said it's just based on population size. Tell me exactly how they get to 29. A middle schooler can do it. You want to be intellectually honest, have at it.

 

My experience in Texas indicates this isn't true. Republicans win in Texas by running up huge margins in rural counties. They do have to try and keep the metropolises as competitive as they can, but they know, outside of Ft. Worth, they're not winning in those places.

The parties will go to their voters are. Republicans aren't going to spend the bulk of their time fighting for votes in localities where they're getting destroyed. But they will want to fight for votes in states where they wouldn't be competitive under the EC (and places where the Democrats aren't competitive under the EC).

 

Backtracking again.

You responded to this:

With this:

Now you're like, "I agreed with that the whole time."

 

That is true.

 

I also think the winner-take-all system is a major problem. It distorts voter power in an extreme and arbitrary manner. Who would have ever thought, let’s make Floridian’s votes count 10x as much as Texas’? It’s origins show that it came from political infighting rather than for national benefit.

If I recall correctly, it was started by Virginia to ensure that Jefferson or Madison would collect all of Virginia’a electors. After that, other states followed suit in order to combat Virginia’s Democrat-Republican elector advantage. It’s not a public benefit; it’s a strategy maintained by the parties who maintain their own interests above that of the country.

 

No you didn't. Look, I can't help you if you are unwilling to operate in good faith.

Nothing changed. Ever. Look at my first post. This is it, the entire point:

Either you accept that (which you seem to have done several times) or you don't, but don't pretend I've made any other argument.

 

I love the rhetorical devices you use. "I'm still waiting" "I've been patient." When you start doing stuff like this it's obvious you're flailing.

"You said it's just based on population size"

I said it's based on population size. Which is true.

You just want to argue random stuff at this point because your entire premise that the EC makes presidential candidates more likely to campaign in small states never made any sense.

 

This one appears to just be a reading comprehension issue on your part. I cannot understand otherwise how you'd miss this.

Again ...

^ this is my only point, no matter how many times you try to ignore that. Remember: two clauses in there.

If South Dakota and North Dakota were the only two swing states (per your hypothetical), as I stated they'd still be ignored. Because why? That's right! Because they don't have large populations! Congrats, you're finally following (hopefully).

 

No, I'm calling you out for making mountains out of mole hills (using North Carolina's size as some sort of "gotcha" despite just being an example to illustrate a point), for changing your argument (first it's swing states with large populations, then it's North Carolina gets focus because it's one of the swing states with the largest populations, then it's even if North Dakota and South Dakota were the only swing states they wouldn't get attention because they're too small, then it's a state has to be up for grabs in order to get attention), and for selectively quoting and answering my posts then pretending I haven't made an argument when you are just refusing to engage with the parts of my argument that you don't like. Then you accuse me of flailing and arguing in bad faith. It might be the most blatant form of projection I've ever seen on Too Hot.

It's partially based on population size, that's only part of the equation.

I find it fitting that you bolded "number of representatives" but didn't bold "for the senators" because the latter doesn't fit the point you're trying to make.

Another reading comprehension issue for you: "The number of representatives per state is apportioned based on their respective populations." Looks like you're ignoring the other part of the equation there, buddy. What about the other two electors?

Here's another middle school question: How are the number of U.S. Senators in a state determined?

If they are all the same number, why bother giving every state the additional two electors in the electoral college? You think the founders just did that for shits and giggles?

 

gatorempire: Swing states have to be large in order to receive attention.

Also gatorempire: States that are not swing states do not receive attention because they are not winnable (or losable presumably).

Conclusion: If the only states that were swing states were small states, I guess no state would receive any attention in presidential elections.

 

Another thing I didn't say. I said, specifically, they wouldn't get attention, which is consistent with:

I didn't say that other states would not get attention, but that they don't get attention now (because there are swing states with large populations)

Which remains the only point I've made despite your attempts to redirect.

When you're this desperate to reshape the argument I think you know your initial premise was on pretty shaky ground.

 

States with small populations are low stakes. There's little benefit to spending any time in them. Nothing about the electoral college negates (or even mitigates) that, because EVs are proportional to population.

That's all there is.

 

I said this:

In response, you said this:

It's right there, black and white.

I have never seen someone lie so blatantly when I can pull up something disproving the lie so quickly. I'm starting to believe that you believe your own BS.

 

Still waiting:

Another reading comprehension issue for you: "The number of representatives per state is apportioned based on their respective populations." Looks like you're ignoring the other part of the equation there, buddy. What about the other two electors?

Here's another middle school question: How are the number of U.S. Senators in a state determined?

If they are all the same number, why bother giving every state the additional two electors in the electoral college? You think the founders just did that for shits and giggles?

Care to respond?

 

Again, I think you're confused or were too eager to smash reply. In no scenario is South Dakota or North Dakota getting any attention. Because they have small populations.

Again, completely consistent with my original post to you. That you keep working around with straw man arguments for some reason.