DEI for the GOP

Then I suppose we cant call ourselves the world's oldest democracy, and democracy isnt really in danger because we never had it.

 

I don’t dispute that the Electoral College causes certain swing states (which vary from election to election) to get disproportionate attention from candidates. But your attitude about a state like Wyoming being “irrelevant” in a presidential election is why you can guarantee they will never agree to giving up the EC. If they’re “irrelevant” now, then how much more so would they be if we moved to a national popular vote where all the attention would move to the major population centers? Besides, can three electoral votes not decide an election? How about 20 when Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Idaho, and the Dakotas vote together?

 

Call it whatever you want or as old as you want. I call it a federal republic with many democratic institutions. If you call it a “democracy” in the general sense of word that the citizens make the rules, directly or indirectly, then fine. But if you mean it in the literal sense where the citizens directly vote on every measure and have the ability to vote away the rights of minorities, such as in ancient Athens, then no we don’t. And I don’t want it.

 

Ok, so what's the difference between the US and Iran? That is also a Republic with some "democratic institutions" (like voting on leaders) with tons of anti-majoritarian checks too.

 

Well, it would make more sense to campaign in Wyoming and plenty of other places that never matter without the EC than with it. You couldnt just spend all your time in CA, TX. NY or Florida and win a popular vote. You have more to gain from visiting as many places as possible, and also issues wouldnt just cater to whatever matters in swing states. Politicians would have to be responsive to every state. Like, the only reason fracking is an issue is because PA is a must win state rn. So in effect, you get like one state deciding energy policy under this system.

 

The defenders of the EC should just be honest and say the intent of the EC is to not allow the popular election of the president, and that's the way they like it. That's it, that's its only purpose now, and that was its purpose when created. The nonsense about small states and all that stuff, its just nonsense lol.

 

We have all seen it in the workplace: the lamest line of reasoning ever: we have always done it this way. That said the chances of it changing are slim to none.

 

You know what? You’ve sold me. Any country with “republic” somewhere in its name is one. Concepts like an independent judiciary, protection of minorities, integrity of elections, dynastic succession, tolerance of an opposition, and such are mere details. Back to EC now, or would you rather quibble about the meaning of an “independent judiciary” next?

 

Once again, you’ve sold me. Let’s execute. Of course, I’m a Florida voter. I recommend you take your show on the road to the 138 Representatives, 58 Senators, and 29 legislatures of the states with 10 or fewer electoral votes. That’s how you translate your vision into action.

 

I don’t recall ever saying it was easy or to recommend a convention. I merely suggest that a Constitutional amendment is the only way you’re going to get this done, short of an idea even more absurd, such as overthrowing the government and imposing a new constitution. It’s not easy at all to amend the Constitution, by design, though it is possible.

What is easy is whining about the well-understood rules of a game on a message board because you don’t like the outcome. If it’s a recommendation you want, I would say adapt to the game as it is rather than just trying to change the rules to your benefit. I still remember clearly in 2008 all of the UGA fans whining, even though they got blown out on the scoreboard, how they got more offensive yards than UF that year. It was a statistic that indicates performance, not a score, just like the popular vote. If offensive yards had been the measure of effectiveness, then UF would have just played the game differently.

 

They'd be just as irrelevant.

And playing the game differently w/r/t the popular vote would be an improvement. It makes every vote count, rather than discouraging any person who is a member of the minority party in an uncompetitive state from voting.

 

They would actually be more relevant. Sure, there aren't many people there, but some of them might be persuadable. If the only thing that matters is whether you can get to a plurality, those swing voters, few as they might be, don't matter at all. In a popular vote system, they do, even if the differences is going from 28% to 30% of the vote of a small group.

There is a pretty easy parallel here with product marketing. Sure, McDonalds gets more customers advertising to people in New York and California, but they don't ignore places like Wyoming with their restaurants, as they can still get customers. They get fewer of them, but it is also cheaper to advertise to them.

 

I have mentioned a way that makes the existing system — which is enshrined in the Constitution and by design very difficult to eliminate — more responsive to the national popular vote that is wholly achievable under the law: proportional division of electoral votes based on the popular vote in individual states. Some states already do this. Make them all do it with a uniform set of rules. That, too, would not be easy, but it is infinitely more plausible than a Constitutional amendment that eliminates the EC altogether.

 

The issue is that this system creates an additional incentive to gerrymander. You would simply replace states being the only thing that matters with a couple of districts in the few states that weren't able to fully gerrymander for one reason or another and ended up with the exceptionally rare swing district.

 

Its always funny to me that Americans believe we can regime change other countries into doing our bidding or establishing Western style governments, but we cant change anything about our own government to make it more democratic, its simply too hard.

 

Well for example Iran guarantees minority representation in their legislature and our ‘independent’ and partisan judiciary simply means unaccountable and unelected in practice, so we could probably quibble about what these things actually look like in how they function now rather than the rhetoric we use around them.

 

Like I said, the only way it works is if everyone does it. Texas can’t go proportional while California stays winner-takes-all.