Faithless Electors Regain Legitimacy
- Thread starter Lloenflys
- Start date
That's fair. Even with "mandatory" voting enforced through fines, Australia's voter participation rate is only around 91-92% as of 2016.
- Pronouns
- he / him / his
But the long arc of American history is the story of embracing increased democracy. Reducing outsized power of certain groups over others is surely the next step?
Darcness
Robot Overlord
Forum Administrator
Associate Justice
Cabinet
Honoured Citizen
Citizen
Discord Moderator
Best Tech Admin
- Pronouns
- He/Him
If we took this hard-line stance, there would still be segregation in our schools. We all like to think we were on the 'right' side of history, but the majority of people in the US were against desegregation when it first hit. The minority must have a mechanism for equality, or else they will never be represented, and the entire point of democracy is that everyone is represented.
For what it's worth, I happen to be a card-carrying member of that majority. I live in the suburbs, in a strong liberal state, with a good job, and am a LGBTQ+ ally. I would absolutely love it if the people out in rural America were replaced with robots. Further than that, the people that represent this minority have been involved in a lot of heinous, immoral shit, either in action or in word. Should the things they stand for be put down? In my opinion, absolutely. BUT, we should be destroying them with vigorous debate and the virtue of our ideas, not a structure systemically designed to silence them.
Remember, once upon a time, people that thought like us were the minority.
Darcness
Robot Overlord
Forum Administrator
Associate Justice
Cabinet
Honoured Citizen
Citizen
Discord Moderator
Best Tech Admin
- Pronouns
- He/Him
As far as the main point (Electoral College and faithless voters) goes, the purpose of the Electoral College was to A) cut down on the logistical complexity of a nation-wide election and B) to allow 'enlightened and informed' individuals decide who would be the primary ruler of the country, to act as a guard against (in the founding fathers' eyes, quite unlikely case of) destructive demagogues who would sweep a popular vote. The former no longer matters, we've overcome that particular problem. The latter they have demonstrably failed in the case of our current President. To follow this logic, the Electoral College should be abolished, as it is a failed institution.
You may not like the scenario that faithless actors allow, JayDee, but that is the entire point of the Electoral College. To blindly follow the votes of the states is to remove the necessity of the body. Following this logic, the Electoral College should be abolished, as it is a pointless institution.
So... sounds like we're in agreement?
You may not like the scenario that faithless actors allow, JayDee, but that is the entire point of the Electoral College. To blindly follow the votes of the states is to remove the necessity of the body. Following this logic, the Electoral College should be abolished, as it is a pointless institution.
So... sounds like we're in agreement?
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/them
We should also be fixing the system that entrenches their outsized power and keeps that minority with a firm grasp on the reins and continuing to pillage the economic base of the nation. Things like gerrymandering, Senate malapportionment, and the Electoral College.
Leaving those institutions unquestioned is giving our implicit approval of their manipulative effects on our political process.
On this point, I solidly agree.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Ok, so apparently I'm actually going to have to show you pictures from the internet and use research to actually explain this to you guys.
Below is a blank map of America
Notice the black lines? These are to indicate the separation of "states." States are defined as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." Now, the word "state" might sound familiar to you, that is because you are in the United States of America. Notice how the word "people" does not appear anywhere in that title?
If you'd like the full title, then we are the Federal Presidential Constitutional REPUBLIC of the United States of America. Once again, I emphasize the lack of "Democracy" or "People" anywhere within that title. Now that's all well and good, but apparently it doesn't explain my point.
You see, each individual state has individual needs that need to be met. However, some of these states are bigger than others so they tend to have larger populations that have more influence. Does that mean the other states don't matter? Well apparently they don't, but hey, that's your opinion, not mine.
So how do we prevent these states, which we actually do need, from getting passed over every four years? Well the solution is exactly what you see today, an Electoral College that gives disproportional representation to accommodate for an already disproportional representation.
Now, you might be saying "bUt thE PeOPLe," and yes, the people are important, which is why they're allowed to vote for STATE representatives. You know, the Governor that dictates all the policies for your state? Yeah, YOU get to vote for them. And guess what?? There's NO Electoral College!!! The thing is, what California needs and what Missouri needs are not the same thing, but according to you, California is more important so let's just sweep Missouri under the rug and forget they exist.
Meanwhile, there are 49 other states that have needs just as important as yours and, unfortunately, the Federal government isn't going to give California all the money just because it's larger. Even more unfortunate is that you actually need those 49 other states. I mean, like you said, the relationship is symbiotic.
Hmm, gonna be honest, looks more like a parasite to me. But hey, those guys in the middle just don't know any better right? They're all a bunch of Redneck morons who can't even get their GED, why should they have more say than the rest of us?
That's a very good question. It's because all those blue dots you see cannot possibly represent the whole country or in some cases even their whole state. That's not representation. That's all the power being focused into one central location...pretty sure there's a word for that somewhere. I'll tell you what, the word definitely isn't "Republic."
You're saying the Electoral College ruined the election. No, it didn't, it did exactly what it was designed to do. It prevented large cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago from deciding the election. It prevented all those tiny blue dots-and a few big ones-on the coast from deciding the fate of that sea of red dots in the middle.
And Prim, I bring up rhetoric from 200 years ago to emphasize my point that Democracy doesn't work. But I suppose the 50th time is the charm? (50 is an arbitrary number, I'm not going to look up how many times Democracy has existed).
I know I sound a bit abrasive in here, but I'm tired of hearing the same argument from people who would gladly argue in favor of the Electoral College if it ever benefited them. People are not being benign altruists who care about the People, they just want to win.
Below is a blank map of America
Notice the black lines? These are to indicate the separation of "states." States are defined as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." Now, the word "state" might sound familiar to you, that is because you are in the United States of America. Notice how the word "people" does not appear anywhere in that title?
If you'd like the full title, then we are the Federal Presidential Constitutional REPUBLIC of the United States of America. Once again, I emphasize the lack of "Democracy" or "People" anywhere within that title. Now that's all well and good, but apparently it doesn't explain my point.
You see, each individual state has individual needs that need to be met. However, some of these states are bigger than others so they tend to have larger populations that have more influence. Does that mean the other states don't matter? Well apparently they don't, but hey, that's your opinion, not mine.
So how do we prevent these states, which we actually do need, from getting passed over every four years? Well the solution is exactly what you see today, an Electoral College that gives disproportional representation to accommodate for an already disproportional representation.
Now, you might be saying "bUt thE PeOPLe," and yes, the people are important, which is why they're allowed to vote for STATE representatives. You know, the Governor that dictates all the policies for your state? Yeah, YOU get to vote for them. And guess what?? There's NO Electoral College!!! The thing is, what California needs and what Missouri needs are not the same thing, but according to you, California is more important so let's just sweep Missouri under the rug and forget they exist.
Meanwhile, there are 49 other states that have needs just as important as yours and, unfortunately, the Federal government isn't going to give California all the money just because it's larger. Even more unfortunate is that you actually need those 49 other states. I mean, like you said, the relationship is symbiotic.
Hmm, gonna be honest, looks more like a parasite to me. But hey, those guys in the middle just don't know any better right? They're all a bunch of Redneck morons who can't even get their GED, why should they have more say than the rest of us?
That's a very good question. It's because all those blue dots you see cannot possibly represent the whole country or in some cases even their whole state. That's not representation. That's all the power being focused into one central location...pretty sure there's a word for that somewhere. I'll tell you what, the word definitely isn't "Republic."
You're saying the Electoral College ruined the election. No, it didn't, it did exactly what it was designed to do. It prevented large cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago from deciding the election. It prevented all those tiny blue dots-and a few big ones-on the coast from deciding the fate of that sea of red dots in the middle.
And Prim, I bring up rhetoric from 200 years ago to emphasize my point that Democracy doesn't work. But I suppose the 50th time is the charm? (50 is an arbitrary number, I'm not going to look up how many times Democracy has existed).
I know I sound a bit abrasive in here, but I'm tired of hearing the same argument from people who would gladly argue in favor of the Electoral College if it ever benefited them. People are not being benign altruists who care about the People, they just want to win.
- Pronouns
- he / him / his
Since you didn't respond to any of my points that I spent a decent amount of time putting together previously, and instead just insist on giving increasingly erratic and aggressive responses, I'm going to have to assume you are trolling.Ok, so apparently I'm actually going to have to show you pictures from the internet and use research to actually explain this to you guys.
Below is a blank map of America
Notice the black lines? These are to indicate the separation of "states." States are defined as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." Now, the word "state" might sound familiar to you, that is because you are in the United States of America. Notice how the word "people" does not appear anywhere in that title?
If you'd like the full title, then we are the Federal Presidential Constitutional REPUBLIC of the United States of America. Once again, I emphasize the lack of "Democracy" or "People" anywhere within that title. Now that's all well and good, but apparently it doesn't explain my point.
You see, each individual state has individual needs that need to be met. However, some of these states are bigger than others so they tend to have larger populations that have more influence. Does that mean the other states don't matter? Well apparently they don't, but hey, that's your opinion, not mine.
So how do we prevent these states, which we actually do need, from getting passed over every four years? Well the solution is exactly what you see today, an Electoral College that gives disproportional representation to accommodate for an already disproportional representation.
Now, you might be saying "bUt thE PeOPLe," and yes, the people are important, which is why they're allowed to vote for STATE representatives. You know, the Governor that dictates all the policies for your state? Yeah, YOU get to vote for them. And guess what?? There's NO Electoral College!!! The thing is, what California needs and what Missouri needs are not the same thing, but according to you, California is more important so let's just sweep Missouri under the rug and forget they exist.
Meanwhile, there are 49 other states that have needs just as important as yours and, unfortunately, the Federal government isn't going to give California all the money just because it's larger. Even more unfortunate is that you actually need those 49 other states. I mean, like you said, the relationship is symbiotic.
Hmm, gonna be honest, looks more like a parasite to me. But hey, those guys in the middle just don't know any better right? They're all a bunch of Redneck morons who can't even get their GED, why should they have more say than the rest of us?
That's a very good question. It's because all those blue dots you see cannot possibly represent the whole country or in some cases even their whole state. That's not representation. That's all the power being focused into one central location...pretty sure there's a word for that somewhere. I'll tell you what, the word definitely isn't "Republic."
You're saying the Electoral College ruined the election. No, it didn't, it did exactly what it was designed to do. It prevented large cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago from deciding the election. It prevented all those tiny blue dots-and a few big ones-on the coast from deciding the fate of that sea of red dots in the middle.
And Prim, I bring up rhetoric from 200 years ago to emphasize my point that Democracy doesn't work. But I suppose the 50th time is the charm? (50 is an arbitrary number, I'm not going to look up how many times Democracy has existed).
I know I sound a bit abrasive in here, but I'm tired of hearing the same argument from people who would gladly argue in favor of the Electoral College if it ever benefited them. People are not being benign altruists who care about the People, they just want to win.
Darcness
Robot Overlord
Forum Administrator
Associate Justice
Cabinet
Honoured Citizen
Citizen
Discord Moderator
Best Tech Admin
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Now you're arguing the actors, rather than the idea, though. The idea is fine, it just happens to be those who hold those particular locations are being greedy with it. Replace the people, and it is fine.
Except gerrymandering. That particular idea rewards those in power, rather than checks them. It's just bad, and the only reason anyone argues against it is the same reason a modest labor-based family votes in favor of large corporations or to lower taxes on the rich: they're all want that power to be around the day they might be 'in charge'.
This is the core of your argument, and unfortunately the core of your argument is based on a selective view of known history. The purpose of the Electoral College is twofold: to represent each state (and thus 'protecting' the minority), and to be a collection of learned individuals (protect against an electorate that has been 'duped').
This election was the most vibrant example of those two purposes being pointed directly at one another. Lots of states voted for this guy, and a lot of learned individuals really believe they were duped into doing so. Did the EC do its job by following along with the votes of their states? Yes. Did the EC fail to do its job by voting against the candidate that they believed had duped so many people? Also yes.
When you say that faithless electors being allowed to vote their conscience is wrong, you're saying that half of the entire purpose of the Electoral College is wrong. The only logical course from that opinion is to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with something that doesn't bother with decision making processes. I wouldn't agree with that particular opinion, but at least it would be internally consistent.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
@HEM My bad.
Everything you point out simply proves my point that every state has different needs. We have state and local representatives because they are the ones that can best handle individual situations. They are directly elected because the people of the state/city are the ones who can (usually) best decide what's best for them.
What a person can't decide with any measurable ability is what is best for the country. Because like I said, what California needs and what Missouri needs are vastly different. I don't think California should get special treatment just because it's larger. The Electoral College forces people to focus more on the country as a whole instead of just NYC, LA, and Chicago.
Everything you point out simply proves my point that every state has different needs. We have state and local representatives because they are the ones that can best handle individual situations. They are directly elected because the people of the state/city are the ones who can (usually) best decide what's best for them.
What a person can't decide with any measurable ability is what is best for the country. Because like I said, what California needs and what Missouri needs are vastly different. I don't think California should get special treatment just because it's larger. The Electoral College forces people to focus more on the country as a whole instead of just NYC, LA, and Chicago.
- Pronouns
- he / him / his
The state lines are totally arbitrary and in many cases were formed as the result of slavery compromises or in other cases for no good reason at all. The amount of reverence you are giving to lines in the sand vs. the actual people of the country is confusing to me.
Yes, we all have state governments that can look after our interests, but there are plenty of powers dedicated to the national government, and plenty more powers assumed by the federal government in the last few decades. Both parties are equally guilty at this point of federal government bloat, but that Pandora's box is open, so now saying that certain people in certain parts of the country should still get an outsized voice on the leader of the executive branch seems silly to me.
Like I mentioned before, the long arc of American history is empowering individual people over individual states. You see that in the Civil War, in the direct election of Senators, in federal intervention over civil rights, etc., etc. I don't know why, then, you find it so shocking that the next step in that process would be wanting the federal election of a President to also be just in that way? I don't know why you only see the only explanation is that a bunch of Hillary voters hate the white, rural American man and want to fuck him over? It's common sense that the idea would at least be brought up at this point.
And to be frank, I think there should be a concern that no non-incumbent Republican President has won the popular vote in over 30 years? No matter what your philosophical beliefs are about constitutional Republicanism or representative democracy, there's only so much of that that the system can take before there's going to be serious tension—that's just the way it is.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Well to be fair the reason Hillary lost is exactly because she didn't go after the white, rural American man.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-rural-voters-trump-231266
I also want to call out this notion that somehow the name/title of our nation is correlated with our system of government as being a complete logical fallacy. For fuck's sake, the full name of North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. Does it have real democracy? Fuck no! The name of a place and how it is run are not mutually inclusive!
- Pronouns
- he / him / his
Yeah, but that's kinda my point! You move like one county out of Michigan and into Ohio or vice versa, she wins. The state lines don't represent anything.
The whole nature of government in the United States has changed since implementation. If some of you folks are honestly for state-centric, de-federalized government, I respect your beliefs and urge for you to go and fight for them—because neither party is are the moment. But the size, scope, and power of the federal government has undergone a revolution since 1787, in such a way that arguing states should elect the President rather than the people is...weird.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/them
I don't support Senate Malapportionment regardless of who is in power. We both oppose gerrymandering and, as you stated above, the Electoral College as well. Perhaps we share some reasons and disagree on some reasons for that opposition.
- Pronouns
- he / him / his
It's been a very, very, very long time. I think it'd be hard to argue that even Reagan executed on those beliefs.
- Pronouns
- He/Him