(11-11-2016 02:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Gray,

It should be pretty easy to understand, I think. The two only seem the same, but are completely different.

- one is in the context that every person receives the same vote

- the other is in the context where we consider giving some people less than one vote

No, you didn't reconcile your stance, you just made it more insane. Please try again.

I bet this ends up just like your fair share progressive tax structure commentary with you unable to explain yourself.

Gray #180,

Well, like I said in the OP, if we're talking about the context of just within a state, then we're talking about the HoR. If we're talking about the whole country, then we're talking about the EC for electing the POTUS.

So it seems to me that you don't have a problem with electing the POTUS by giving every American the same, equal vote, and then just electing the candidate who collects the most American votes.


Gray #181,

You'll have to explain why you don't think it's reconciled. I can't help you if you just say "no, that's insane" even when I perfectly explained it.

I think the best answer is proportional representation... and that can take a number of forms

Option 1.... If Trump gets 20% of the votes in a state, he gets 20% of the electoral votes from that state. In this situation, minority candidates would actually get votes. This would somewhat address liberals complaints in that while Hillary wouldn't have gotten all 55 votes in Cali, she would have gotten most of them, and far more than she got in Pa and Fl and Mi and Tx etc etc.

Option 2 (which I prefer)... is that we vote for parties (who put forth a 'leadership team') rather than electors for President. So you can vote for your local Senator from whichever party... and then you vote 'leadership', which may or may not be the same party. In this election, making the obviously false assumption that no votes would change... NEITHER party would have a majority, but the fringe parties might be part of forming a coalition that creates one. I think the ultimate end-game is that reps and dems would still dominate, but minority parties would grow and expand greatly. I think this would provide FAR more specific representation and allow people not to have to choose between 'bad' choices or make a purely symbolic vote

other thoughts?

(11-11-2016 02:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Gray #180,

Well, like I said in the OP, if we're talking about the context of just within a state, then we're talking about the HoR. If we're talking about the whole country, then we're talking about the EC for electing the POTUS.

So it seems to me that you don't have a problem with electing the POTUS by giving every American the same, equal vote, and then just electing the candidate who collects the most American votes.


Gray #181,

You'll have to explain why you don't think it's reconciled. I can't help you if you just say "no, that's insane" even when I perfectly explained it.

I disagree with your assessment of me on the electoral college. I am in favor of keeping the electoral college process. We do not live in pure democracy, but are a republic. The founding fathers got that right in the beginning.

On your second statement...you made a comment in another thread something along the lines of that the uneducated should not get the same vote as the educated. Do you truly believe that should be the case?

(11-11-2016 02:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ham #86,

- So you agree that 0% of the voters were actually desiring to choose an Elector, because they didn't know who they should vote for to be POTUS? That would seem to be the case, as I'm 100% certain that every ballot cast listed the candidates for POTUS directly .... and did not list choices for Electors.

No. I believe that lots of people knew/believed that the outcome of the Presidential election in their state was a foregone conclusion. Cali goes left, Texas goes right... and since there IS no proportional EC vote, a conservative in Cali and a liberal in Tx is (for all intents and purposes) wasting their time voting for President. If you didn't care about anything else on the ballot, you might not vote at all.

Heck, a liberal in Cali or conservative in Tx might not vote at all if they knew their candidate had their 55 or 38 votes all wrapped up. That's why 'pot' in Cali was a big driver. There is a huge game to such things.

Quote:That means there's zero chance to justify the EC using the first justification that the Founders used. You don't deny this.

actually I do a whole lot. You simply misunderstood me.

Quote:I'm asking: how do you justify making it so that doesn't happen???

Take it to the extreme to prove the point (I know it's an absurd example, but it proves the gist of the idea) --> State X has 1M people and 10 counties, and 5 EC votes. Counties 1 - 9 have 1 person each. County 10 has 999,991 people. Counties 1 - 9 each vote 100% (ie, 1 vote) for candidate A. County 10 casts 900k votes for candidate B and 991 votes for candidate A.

According to you, that state's five EC votes should be put towards candidate A, because 9 of 10 counties voted for candidate A.


But wait a second! I thought each person receives the same vote??? How can that be true then, when 900k of 1M voters in the state voted for candidate B!?!



At least give me that you comprehend the logic I'm using here, even if you reject it on its face and refuse to consider it valid.

Well, first of all you'd never set up a county with one person. I understand that this is a hypothetical, but your postulate has to be at least reasonable. Counties are arbitrary lines... and the number of people within them can ebb and flow without ever changing the lines. 'Voting districts' are not. If you had those counties with 1 person each, the state would likely combine them into 1 voting district as a means of apportioning the total number of electoral votes or congressional seats.

Therefore the concern you have about the imbalance of the counties is addressed within the states... through the census. California hasn't ALWAYS had 55 electoral votes/appx 10% of the total. They have appx 10% of the EVs because theyhave approximately 10% of the population. LA COunty will have a dozen representatives to the Central Valley's 3, also because of relative population within the state. When a new census comes out and Cali gains or loses seats, it is up to the legislature to carve out new districts to reflect the change in population

and the concern about the states is more a function of too few electoral votes to adequately reflect the population. Simple solution, 550 electoral votes rather than 55 for monster state, and 50 rather than 1 (100) for tiny state that was over-represented because you rounded UP to 1, and 150 for the other tiny state that was under-represented because you rounded DOWN to 1... and 2700 rather than 270 to win.

as to how you justify it, I'd point you to Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America and the 'tyranny of the majority'. It's where our concept of 'majority rule with minority rights' comes from. i doubt libs would want to get rid of THAT, would they?

The problem with your solution is that it presumes a static national political perspective. Without marginally disproportionate power being given to minority opinions, the majority would NEVER lose, and thus they would be able to rig the system as they needed to maintain their power in perpetuity.

Oddly, one of the most popular shows on Broadway right now is 'Hamilton'... which is an AMAZING performance (even if historically questionable) and STRONGLY supported by 'the left' as a statement on modern democracy... Hamilton was a SIGNIFICANT opponent of the Tyranny of the majority. Wiki has a nice quote on his thoughts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Ham #185,

- What does "knew/believed that the outcome of the Presidential election in their state was a foregone conclusion" have to do with justifying the EC based on the idea that people would need to elect Electors who would then be intelligent/informed enough to actually select a valid POTUS (as opposed to, say, a tree)???

Just because you build a beautiful red herring, doesn't mean it's not a red herring.


- It's quite obvious that you're so scared of inadvertently de-justifying the electoral college, that you'll say anything you think you need to in order to preserve it.

You can't even admit that the first justification used in the time of the Founding Fathers is no longer valid, even though the second justification is potentially valid. You won't even do that.

That's not fair, or honest.

- so you just brushed aside my hypothetical that proves my point, because you didn't like it

- your proposed update doesn't do anythign differently, if each state awards "winner take all". It just means Trump gets 200 EC votes out of PA instead of 20, when it should've been 10-10 or 100-100 (in your update)

- "Without marginally disproportionate power being given to minority opinions, the majority would NEVER lose"

............................. WTF?????? So in other words, you don't believe in democracy. You believe in, I guess, "well, sorry kids ... I know you voted 9 to 1 to go to Burger King instead of Steak Shake ... but daddy wants Steak Shake, so I'm arbitrarily deciding that the minority rights need to be emphasized today".

- Uhh.... have you taken a look at that link, lately? Not sure if it constantly being updated by competing sides ... but it says:

Quote:The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses") is artificially created to be used to against the systems of democracy and majority rule.

(11-11-2016 05:53 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ham #185,

- What does "knew/believed that the outcome of the Presidential election in their state was a foregone conclusion" have to do with justifying the EC based on the idea that people would need to elect Electors who would then be intelligent/informed enough to actually select a valid POTUS (as opposed to, say, a tree)???

Just because you build a beautiful red herring, doesn't mean it's not a red herring.

I didn't say it did. You presented a false equivalency and tried to associate me to it.

My point is that the numbers being presented as 'the popular vote' are NOT 'the popular vote'... because we do not HAVE a popular vote. We have an EC vote. By having an EC vote rather than a popular vote, you change people's penchant to vote, or perhaps whom they vote for. NOBODY votes for an elector, but everyone knows how the game is played.

You presented the false position and claimed that 'I agreed' to your false premise. The fact is that people know that their vote may not matter to the outcome... that under our laws, losing 49.9 to 50.1 is exactly the same as losing 70/30 or 99.9 to 0.01... and THAT impacts behavior.

Change the rules, and you change how people vote. It is neither an endorsement nor vilification of either position, merely correcting your comment that 'I agree' that people ALWAYS vote for the person they want to win. You've heard of the term 'protest vote', right?

Quote:- It's quite obvious that you're so scared of inadvertently de-justifying the electoral college, that you'll say anything you think you need to in order to preserve it.

You can't even admit that the first justification used in the time of the Founding Fathers is no longer valid, even though the second justification is potentially valid. You won't even do that.

That's not fair, or honest.

- so you just brushed aside my hypothetical that proves my point, because you didn't like it

If you want to start throwing insults, we can do that as well.

I addressed your hypothetical, but I corrected a completely misleading or uninformed detail. You act as if the number of electoral votes is static and arbitrary. It's not. I don't like it because it doesn't reflect anything remotely related to reality. Hypotheticals still have to follow the rules... and the rules are that as the population of an area changes, the number of electors for that area changes. Your hypothetical precluded that.

FTR, I won't 'do that' because you didn't ask me to agree or disagree with your position. You asked me to give you a good reason for it. If you want an echo chamber who just tells you 'I agree', then don't ask people for 'the other side of the argument'.

Quote:- your proposed update doesn't do anythign differently, if each state awards "winner take all". It just means Trump gets 200 EC votes out of PA instead of 20, when it should've been 10-10 or 100-100 (in your update)

You not understanding it doesn't mean it doesn't do anything different.

PA wouldn't have 200, they'd have 196 or 204, depending on rounding. Those votes would come from or go to other states. More significantly, Wyoming wouldn't go from 3 to 30, but perhaps from 3 to 21. (10 each for the senators, but then only 1 for the 'population' rather than 10.

California getting 55 and Wyoming getting 3 is a function of rounding. You can't give Wyoming NO representation, so even though they might be 0.000000001% of the national population, they get 1/538 or 0.2% of the EC votes. Under my scenario, they can get only 1/5380 or .0002% of the votes. That's closer to accurate. If you want to make it 1/53800, that's fine as well. No matter what, adding electors allows you to more closely approximate the actual population and not so grossly over or under-represent states due to rounding.

Again, you not understanding it doesn't mean it's not different. It's different. In theory, you could move the number of electors to 121mm, which WOULD essentially be direct voting... so increasing the number of electors moves us closer to direct/popular voting.

Quote:- "Without marginally disproportionate power being given to minority opinions, the majority would NEVER lose"

............................. WTF?????? So in other words, you don't believe in democracy. You believe in, I guess, "well, sorry kids ... I know you voted 9 to 1 to go to Burger King instead of Steak Shake ... but daddy wants Steak Shake, so I'm arbitrarily deciding that the minority rights need to be emphasized today".

This isn't about what I believe in. It's about what the founders put in place. If we had simple majority rule, only white men could still vote.

Have you honestly never heard of the phrase 'majority rule with minority rights'?

Quote:- Uhh.... have you taken a look at that link, lately? Not sure if it constantly being updated by competing sides ... but it says:

Quote:The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses") is artificially created to be used to against the systems of democracy and majority rule.

Yes, Wiki is constantly updated... by random people. So a phrase is artificially created? C'mon Bison. WHat it means is that it really isn't talking about 'tyranny', which has a very specific definition, but instead is meant to represent an 'impression'. Another word for that would be a euphemism.... meaning it isn't intended to be taken literally.

Read what Hamilton wrote. Read Tocqueville. You asked for a justification, and they are the authorities on it. Don't scan wiki, find one phrase that can be interpreted as bad and reject the idea because of that.

(11-11-2016 02:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think the best answer is proportional representation... and that can take a number of forms

Option 1.... If Trump gets 20% of the votes in a state, he gets 20% of the electoral votes from that state. In this situation, minority candidates would actually get votes. This would somewhat address liberals complaints in that while Hillary wouldn't have gotten all 55 votes in Cali, she would have gotten most of them, and far more than she got in Pa and Fl and Mi and Tx etc etc.

Option 2 (which I prefer)... is that we vote for parties (who put forth a 'leadership team') rather than electors for President. So you can vote for your local Senator from whichever party... and then you vote 'leadership', which may or may not be the same party. In this election, making the obviously false assumption that no votes would change... NEITHER party would have a majority, but the fringe parties might be part of forming a coalition that creates one. I think the ultimate end-game is that reps and dems would still dominate, but minority parties would grow and expand greatly. I think this would provide FAR more specific representation and allow people not to have to choose between 'bad' choices or make a purely symbolic vote

other thoughts?

Interesting and thoughtful post. The "vote for your party not your candidate" idea is something Washington personally despised.

I don't get your fascination with more parties. the two party system is naturally occurring and it is the best for democracy. more than two parties is where things get ****** up. look at egypt, their first HoS had 24% of the popular and vote but had the most votes. it's hard to govern when 75% of the country did not vote for you. or look at the UK. the PM tried to sway a couple of votes from a fringe party and ended up putting the unthinkable option on the table that no one would expect to ever be enacted and it passed. while we have a lot of reasons for the success of our system here in the USA I truly think the two party system plays a big role to that success.

(11-11-2016 07:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think the best answer is proportional representation... and that can take a number of forms

Option 1.... If Trump gets 20% of the votes in a state, he gets 20% of the electoral votes from that state. In this situation, minority candidates would actually get votes. This would somewhat address liberals complaints in that while Hillary wouldn't have gotten all 55 votes in Cali, she would have gotten most of them, and far more than she got in Pa and Fl and Mi and Tx etc etc.

Option 2 (which I prefer)... is that we vote for parties (who put forth a 'leadership team') rather than electors for President. So you can vote for your local Senator from whichever party... and then you vote 'leadership', which may or may not be the same party. In this election, making the obviously false assumption that no votes would change... NEITHER party would have a majority, but the fringe parties might be part of forming a coalition that creates one. I think the ultimate end-game is that reps and dems would still dominate, but minority parties would grow and expand greatly. I think this would provide FAR more specific representation and allow people not to have to choose between 'bad' choices or make a purely symbolic vote

other thoughts?

Interesting and thoughtful post. The "vote for your party not your candidate" idea is something Washington personally despised.

I don't get your fascination with more parties. the two party system is naturally occurring and it is the best for democracy. more than two parties is where things get ****** up. look at egypt, their first HoS had 24% of the popular and vote but had the most votes. it's hard to govern when 75% of the country did not vote for you. or look at the UK. the PM tried to sway a couple of votes from a fringe party and ended up putting the unthinkable option on the table that no one would expect to ever be enacted and it passed. while we have a lot of reasons for the success of our system here in the USA I truly think the two party system plays a big role to that success.

Great points John

For all its faults the two party system forces stability and moderation. Sometimes those two ingredients are the most important yet taken for granted

Urban voters marginalized? You're kidding right?
The elites in New York and LA look down their collective noses at those of us in flyover country. They believe they know what's best for us because of their liberal education.

They have long thrown off the shackles of organized religion, traditional family values and individual responsibility and replaced them with their more enlightened alternatives. What wasn't Hillary said
about it taking a village?

What this election proved was, much to the dismay of the elitist liberal left, is that the power still rests with those of us in the heartland. Those of us here what:

Obamacare repealed
Free Cell Phones Turned Off
Drug testing for those on Federal Assistance
Deportation of Illegal immigrants
Our Nations Immigration laws enforced
Secured Borders
Limited Immigration
Repeal of NAFTA

Personally I would like to see us get out of the UN and send them packing out of New York but I doubt that happens. It's time Europe fights its own battles and proves its own security.

Finally as a Christian I would like to see the SCOTUS reverse Roe vs. Wade and stop the legalized murder of the unborn.
CJ

MPLS continues to not answer the questions asked. She simply dodges them and moves on to her next talking point/emotional outburst.

I don't favor the 2 party system because it puts people into one of only 2 positions... and almost everyone I know has bits and pieces of each party, but they get saddled with the parts they don't want, in order to get the parts they do.

i.e. if you are socially liberal but fiscally conservative, whom do you vote for? If I could vote for (just as an example) Hillary and Libertarian.... then I have a SHOT at Democrats working with Libertarians to form a fiscally conservative, socially liberal coalition. I don't have to 'give up' either position to get what I want. Democrats don't have to give up their social values and libertarians don't have to give up their fiscal responsibility. Next issue is say tougher border security... which I support but democrats don't, but Republicans want to steal from the arts to fund it, and the greens say they will support Republicans toughening the border, if they legalize pot and tax it.

2 parties just isn't enough to represent 320mm people across I don't know... 5mm square miles and 4 time zones?

The problems in Britain and other similar places is that they have a dozen parties for 60mm people. That's only our Pacific Time Zone.

I just think that the primary problem facing this country is a strong feeling by LARGE portions of the country that THEIR views are not being heard. It creates arguments and fights and riots and bombings and hate and hurt and wastes of potential

Ham #187,

- First off: I disagree that I was insulting. If you took something as an insult, that's my fault for poorly wording my response and I apologize. I've greatly enjoyed discussing issues with you, more than any other poster on this sub-forum, the last couple weeks, and hope it can continue. Know that I'm not trying to be insulting, for what that's worth.

- The original discussion was, and still is, "can you justify the EC". You gave two reasons that the FF used.

Is it actually possible that, somehow, you believe the first justification they used way back then is still valid in today's world, even though every person selects a POTUS candidate on their ballot??? It shouldn't be. I don't think you actually believe it is. But I'll let you respond.

- I didn't realize that you were taking the number of EC votes given to each state out to the next significant digit. Your previous post just made it seem that you were multiplying everything by 10.

- Even still, I don't believe that would have made a difference, in the context of "winner take all".

- We need to be careful about not conflating racial/ethnic/religious minority with voter minority. While it's possible that white men could all vote the same, you know that's impossible politically. White men are as divided as any voting group.

- Can't you just summarize the main point of the philosophical argument against letting the voting majority win the vote, in a couple lines?

Ham #192,

In a fantasy world that will never happen:

I can imagine a system where you elect leaders who are just in charge of a particular broad group of policies, rather than everything. For exactly the reason you say.

So we have a policy leader in charge of health care, one in charge of military, one in charge of tax policy, etc.

(11-12-2016 10:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ham #187,

- First off: I disagree that I was insulting.

IN fewest words, you called me 'not fair, or honest'. That's an insult in most places, but I'll accept that it wasn't intended that way. No problem and I appreciate apologizing

Quote:- Can't you just summarize the main point of the philosophical argument against letting the voting majority win the vote, in a couple lines?

Not responding to the rest because most of it isn't things I said.

The philosophical argument is that we have two forms of government. State and Federal. We value the uniqueness of the states... Not merely based on geography, but on state laws. A Federal politician must therefore not only appeal to 'the people', but to the states'. That's why we have one house where population is the driver of power, and the other where each state is equal. This is how the EC is broken down... for essentially the same reasons. Obviously with 438 electors assigned by population and only 100 by 'state', the weightings STILL favor population... but it DOES at least put SOME value on having appeal across more states as opposed to simply dominating a few large population pockets.

(11-12-2016 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ham #192,

In a fantasy world that will never happen:

I can imagine a system where you elect leaders who are just in charge of a particular broad group of policies, rather than everything. For exactly the reason you say.

So we have a policy leader in charge of health care, one in charge of military, one in charge of tax policy, etc.

So Germany and the UK and Italy are fantasy lands?

Actually, proportional representation is quite popular, and mostly by the left.