New book "Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point"

^ How many Ukrainians would a President Trump have gotten killed ?

 

It would be interesting to read more behind why individuals follow Trump. I get conservative principles- low tax, pro life, more guns, strong border, etc. most Repub candidates support all that without the criminality, sexual assault, belittling our military, lies, divisiveness, encouraging hate etc etc that Trump has in spades


From the article:

 

Decidedly NOT off-topic. A balkanized America would be much less likely to instigate wars around the world.

 

So you are in favor of actual asymmetric voter power as a way to prevent asymmetric voter power based on a notion that the power of a person’s vote should be contingent on the proximity of other people?

power to the dirt!!

 

If you're referring to Ukrainians killed by Russia in its fight for independence very few. Donald Trump would have delivered the country to Vladimir Putin who would have ended the existence of Ukraine as an independent country and reincorporated it back into Russia as it was under the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire under Czars. Once again this describes Trump's opinion of Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.
Trump calls Putin 'genius' and 'savvy' for Ukraine invasion

 

1 of the worst ideas ever IMO. Ironic that you'd bring it up in a thread about the tyranny of the minority b/c that's what it would create.

 

Fixed it for you.
Decidedly NOT off-topic. A balkanized America would be much less likely to instigate wars around the world act as a counter-weight to the expansionist tendencies of Putin's Russia or Xi's China or for that matter any future regimes with strong expansionist tendencies.

 

How so?

 

As opposed to the current tyranny of the minority created by winner-take-all. In a hypothetical presidential election in which there is a strong third party under the current system of allocating electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis a candidate with 40% of the votes but with a plurality would receive all of a state's electoral votes. By my definition that hypothetical 40% would be a minority considering that 60% of the voters preferred other candidates. That combined with the way electoral allocated with smaller states receiving a disproportionate share can result in a tyranny of the minority. There is a term for a system of government in which a minority rules over the majority, it's called a dictatorship.

 

Not even close. Madison feared a tyranny of the majority but the EC gives us a tyranny of the minority. It suits you because it aligns with YOUR viewpoint

 

if there were 49 dems & 49 pubs & 2 docspors in the senate the docspors would arguably have the most power

 

maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about proportional representation not the EC

 

I thought I'd remembered reading about the probs of proportional representation in Israel & I rememberd right.

Israel's Flawed Electoral System: Obstacle to Peace and Democracy

Israeli politics is notable for its wide array of parties and unstable coalition governments. The main institutional cause of this chronic instability is the system of nationwide proportional representation, which gives disproportionate influence to minor parties. This instability limits the ability of Israeli governments to pursue coherent long-term strategies and leads to policies that address the concerns of minority groups at the expense of the national interest. Most critically, Israel’s deeply flawed electoral system has been an obstacle to Israel’s ability to reverse its ill-fated settlement and occupation policies and to make peace with the Palestinians. Electoral reforms that increase accountability and promote governmental cohesion would provide the basis for a more stable and effective system of governance, and help ensure the future of a liberal and democratic Jewish state.

 

You sure do seem to take extremes…

It’s not like smaller states have less EC votes or anything… there is a balance to it.

Here is another example, NJ has 14 EC votes. Wyoming is a much larger state land wise but a much smaller population. Wyoming gets 3 EC votes.

NJ is a very densely packed population.


Again I don’t claim EC is a perfect system. It’s just a better way than going by popular vote.

 

No, I was talking about making the EC votes proportional to the actual vote.

Another thought is expanding the House instead of using the 1929 cap so there are more votes available. Might even be possible for third party representation. Will never happen because both parties want to keep the status quo.

 

I have never understood how the electoral college supposedly does what you think. The Senate, sure, but not the EC.

The EC just suppresses the minority votes in states and leaves the election to be decided by the swing states.

 

I have no problem with that. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.

 

as far as urban density you may be surprised to learn that Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oregon & Arizona are all in the top 10 in % of pop that's urban.

In my world, states don't & should not have voices. You seem to use this notion to justify asymmetric voting power of actual people.

 

I believe we are talking about making the EC electors proportional the the vote count of a state. So if a state has 10 EC votes and the popular vote is 60% R and 40% D, the EC votes would go 6 for the R and 4 for the D. As is it's 10 for the R and 40% of the people of that state had no vote.

 

got it. my bad