Astrellan
Drifting among the stars...
- Pronouns
- He/Him
^
Stands for many other countries too. The name of a country does not give credence to a perceived purpose of one's political system. That's an insubstantial argument to make.
Faithless Electors Regain Legitimacy
- Thread starter Lloenflys
- Start date
Stands for many other countries too. The name of a country does not give credence to a perceived purpose of one's political system. That's an insubstantial argument to make.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yeah, I know I am being pretty condescending. I'm just tired of hearing the same argument from everyone about "representing the People" when just about any one of them would happily defend the Electoral College if it served their interests.
The Electoral College has always been something of hot contention, but the truth is that is has been doing a good job of keeping the Rust Belt states from getting overlooked. Is there a better system? Probably. Breaking up Electoral votes by like Maine and Nebraska instead of a winner takes all would probably work better, but it's better than popular vote.
The Electoral College has always been something of hot contention, but the truth is that is has been doing a good job of keeping the Rust Belt states from getting overlooked. Is there a better system? Probably. Breaking up Electoral votes by like Maine and Nebraska instead of a winner takes all would probably work better, but it's better than popular vote.
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/them
I do not defend the Electoral College, and would not, even if it served my interests.
The EC doesn't "make candidates focus on rural states" -- it actually shifts the race from trying to speak to all of the people, down to "speak to only those people who live in battleground states" -- for some of my life, I lived in a battleground state (Missouri) -- our election cycles were loud and full of political ads.... after 2008 (and then definitely after 2012) we went solid Red and are no longer a battleground. The political ads basically went away, they just don't bother anymore.
So, to argue that the Electoral College keeps some states from getting overlooked is absurd. It actually narrows the field that candidates have to talk to.
And, I echo HEM's sentiments, state borders are just imaginary lines on the ground -- they literally don't differentiate stark differences in "political needs" as much as you claim. I think that the archaic notion that each state has a different set of needs is a facade, only brought up by those enamored of some political ideal of "states' rights" and promoted by an American political mythology heavily ingrained in our education system -- "Manifest Destiny", "the infallible Constitution", "American Exceptionalism", "the Founding Fathers".
We just got stuck with this hacked-together, and heavily inefficient, form of government because, as a set of disparate colonies without a real unifying fundamental (like nationality), each colony pressed as hard as possible for independence while still allowing for a joint military. The drafters of the constitution intentionally set a significant amount of roadblocks to progress and change (though we now try to re-frame it as "protecting people's rights", that's absurd as they entrenched slavery, debt bondage, suffrage for land-owning white males only, etc.).
At the time, it was a very interesting experiment in political governance and likely one of the countries with the most protection of civil rights (as much as they had back then) -- but now, as other countries have moved on to iterate better and more efficient methods of governance, ours is mired in archaic ideas and traditions. We've been able to survive some institutional crises by doing as HEM mentioned, slowly removing some of these old obstacles to popular progress (altering the Senate to be directly elected, the civil war to end slavery, federal intervention in civil rights enforcement), but we still have some remnants of unnecessary "colonial independence / States' Rights" in things like Senate Malapportionment, the Electoral College, and the cap on the size of the House of Representatives.
We're a political region and I love that we're having this discussion, but I do always find it odd when people still cling to these backward notions of "states' rights" as if there's any significant difference between the political needs and will of each state, even when a method of proportional representation would still allow for representation of niche or minority interests.
To note, apart from things like the Senate, we do still have other methods of giving "minorities" (not just ethnic minorities, but also minority interests) a hand in power-sharing. We have two bodies, elected via statewide versus district-based methods, which helps divide out larger-scale versus smaller-scale interests. We have tools like the filibuster which allows for minority groups to press their issues when needed. Until recently, we even had US Senators allowed to veto judicial appointments through the blue slip system, though McConnell has blasted that. Senate and House committees allow individual lawmakers more power over their areas of concern on committees (larger voice and more powerful committee vote).
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- he / him / his
I think this post, and many others you have made here, have been in bad faith. You've already cast up strawmen of what we all think, barely glanced at the posts folks here took time to put together, and have remained unmoved not only in your own beliefs but also in what you think our beliefs are.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I wasn't accusing you guys of anything, didn't mean to insinuate that. I've tried to address your points as best I can, but I know I've let quite a few slip through the cracks. School has started back up and it's back to the grind so I definitely let quite a few points go unaddressed. I'm not trying to throw up straw-men arguments. I'm just giving everything a quick read through and addressing some of the main points I see.
I'd like to think I know you guys well enough to know you actually care about this, but when I spend most of my days on Tumblr where people literally only care about getting their way, I do get a bit pessimistic. I wasn't trying to take it out on you guys, I was just trying to explain my annoyance with this issue.
I also wouldn't go as far as to say my beliefs are immovable. I've changed my mind on many subjects, including the Electoral College. I know it's not a perfect system, to say it has flaws would be like saying the Devil is a bad person. I'm simply arguing that it has prevented flyover states from being overlooked during elections and big cities like NYC from deciding the election.
I'd like to think I know you guys well enough to know you actually care about this, but when I spend most of my days on Tumblr where people literally only care about getting their way, I do get a bit pessimistic. I wasn't trying to take it out on you guys, I was just trying to explain my annoyance with this issue.
I also wouldn't go as far as to say my beliefs are immovable. I've changed my mind on many subjects, including the Electoral College. I know it's not a perfect system, to say it has flaws would be like saying the Devil is a bad person. I'm simply arguing that it has prevented flyover states from being overlooked during elections and big cities like NYC from deciding the election.
Phew I had no idea this topic would generate such interest, and here I went and didn't even get the main article written. I'll blame part of that on laziness (because good God did I need a lazy weekend), part of it on the fact that the underlying opinion is 117 pages long (yikes!), and part of it on the fact that I did get a couple of nagging personal things done this weekend that I've been putting off for ages. So enough excuses! I'm going to do my best to post the actual article in the next couple of days.
While the discussion in here has been (to me!) unexpectedly vigorous, the legal analysis will focus less on what we should have in place and more on what the law requires in this particular case. Undoubtedly my opinions will seep through in the course of that analysis, but to the extent possible I'll be doing my best to analyze it as a straight-up legal question. I'll try to identify where there may be cleavage points on the Court if it makes it to the Supremes, that sort of thing. Until then ... keep on keeping on!
While the discussion in here has been (to me!) unexpectedly vigorous, the legal analysis will focus less on what we should have in place and more on what the law requires in this particular case. Undoubtedly my opinions will seep through in the course of that analysis, but to the extent possible I'll be doing my best to analyze it as a straight-up legal question. I'll try to identify where there may be cleavage points on the Court if it makes it to the Supremes, that sort of thing. Until then ... keep on keeping on!
I have to somewhat disagree with this. While I agree with you on the Electoral College, some states do have unique needs, challenges, et cetera. To use my home state of Oregon as an example, we are unique in that we are the most heavily forested state in the nation. This means that the forestry industry has an incredible influence here, whereas in many other places it doesn't. We also have a real issue with the federal government owning 53% of the state's land, which inhibits economic growth within our own territory. Plus we have the issue of the federal government under Trump not respecting our cannabis laws, restricting such businesses' ability to work with banks in our own state, as well as across state lines. This is not to say at all that the EC would help Oregonians deal with those issues but only that the notion you mentioned is not as archaic as you claim, at least not from where I stand.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Not to mention people are enamored with the issue of States Rights because it is one that is enshrined in our Constitution.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Oh, you mean that thing that the Civ-gets slapped by the spirit of 300,000 Union soldiers
Dude, no. Read the constitutions of Southern states at the time. It was about slavery. There is only debate about it because of revisionists who act in bad faith.
Darcness
Robot Overlord
Forum Administrator
Associate Justice
Cabinet
Honoured Citizen
Citizen
Discord Moderator
Best Tech Admin
- Pronouns
- He/Him
There was a point in time when some states had to wait to get into the Union, because it would unbalance the number of slave states versus non-slave states. Go read about a little piece of law nicknamed the 'Missouri Compromise'.
Was the Civil War a fight for survival? By those who undertook it, yes. Because they all truly believed their lives would be destroyed if slavery was abolished. Admittedly, they were right, their way of life would have been destroyed, and it eventually was, but it was fucking evil, so whatever.
That said, minorities are endangered by a full majority rule. A purely proportional representation creates less and less equality for those who are 'different'. Rooting for it implies a bit of short-sightedness. Or, to say it another way: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."
Was the Civil War a fight for survival? By those who undertook it, yes. Because they all truly believed their lives would be destroyed if slavery was abolished. Admittedly, they were right, their way of life would have been destroyed, and it eventually was, but it was fucking evil, so whatever.
That said, minorities are endangered by a full majority rule. A purely proportional representation creates less and less equality for those who are 'different'. Rooting for it implies a bit of short-sightedness. Or, to say it another way: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."
... except for anything having to do with the highest office in the land.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
No I mean the thing that gets hijacked by racists but is still a critical part of our constitution
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/them
116th session House (district-based FPTP election method (considers population) -- more proportional):
102 women -- 23.4%
56 black-- 12.9%
44 hispanic -- 10.1%
15 asian -- 3.4%
4 native amer. -- 0.9%
116th session Senate (state-wide FPTP election method (disregards population) -- less proportional):
25 women -- 25%
3 black -- 3%
4 hispanic -- 4%
3 asian -- 3%
1 multiracial -- 1%
[wikipedia]
Which method better allows minorities to be represented?
The Senate represents states, not people. That’s the problem.
It does give each state a significant amount of influence, a minimum of 3 representatives, but does allow for some variance based on population (but not purely proportional). It also introduces and interesting consensus-style method of voting within the body, promoting consensus and broad policy agreement, not division (as ours tends to). It seems to be a symbol of the "unification" of East and West Germany and the method of power-sharing to ensure minority representation for each state's needs, while not giving a blanket ability to halt all legislation and stop the legislating process.
I personally would be fine with the US Senate, if we could allow a minor amount of variation for population.
Perhaps 2 Senators for small states, 3-4 Senators for middling states, and perhaps 5 Senators for Larger states.
It would still allow for strong representation by very small states, but wouldn't have such a profound effect on the disparity of influence that each individual voter has between states.
102 women -- 23.4%
56 black-- 12.9%
44 hispanic -- 10.1%
15 asian -- 3.4%
4 native amer. -- 0.9%
116th session Senate (state-wide FPTP election method (disregards population) -- less proportional):
25 women -- 25%
3 black -- 3%
4 hispanic -- 4%
3 asian -- 3%
1 multiracial -- 1%
[wikipedia]
Which method better allows minorities to be represented?
The Senate represents states, not people. That’s the problem.
An African-American man won the popular vote twice -- the limiting factor in Executive Elections, in my opinion, is really each party's own primary process, not necessarily the general election as a whole (anymore). I think the general electorate (as a popular vote) would be fine with electing minorities.
To be honest, after Drecq talked about it, I looked up info on the German method of election. I actually sort of like that method. It's not purely proportional, and actually allows for broad party preferences and also individual-level politician votes.
It does give each state a significant amount of influence, a minimum of 3 representatives, but does allow for some variance based on population (but not purely proportional). It also introduces and interesting consensus-style method of voting within the body, promoting consensus and broad policy agreement, not division (as ours tends to). It seems to be a symbol of the "unification" of East and West Germany and the method of power-sharing to ensure minority representation for each state's needs, while not giving a blanket ability to halt all legislation and stop the legislating process.
I personally would be fine with the US Senate, if we could allow a minor amount of variation for population.
Perhaps 2 Senators for small states, 3-4 Senators for middling states, and perhaps 5 Senators for Larger states.
It would still allow for strong representation by very small states, but wouldn't have such a profound effect on the disparity of influence that each individual voter has between states.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Strong representation by having half the representation of a larger state.
Yeah no thanks.
Yeah no thanks.
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/them
While having a 10th or a 20th of the population of the same larger state....
This is one of the problems with the US, it has stability and institutional inertia, but it's too intractable to change. If these disparities become too acute, instead of bending, it could break entirely.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I get your argument but I am just not in favor of turning over a majority of the voting power to New York or California. Equal representation for all states or none at all.
Yes I am totally Gunning Bedford Jring you right now.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yes...that's what I was saying, hence the "slapped by the spirit of 300,000 Union soldiers" part
I should probably do a better job of being specific
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/them
Out of those two options, I choose none at all. But I support a middle ground, which you haven't listed an option for here.
Also, the political atmosphere that led to the compromises in the Constitutional Convention are no longer applicable to present day.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
What's the middle ground?Out of those two options, I choose none at all. But I support a middle ground, which you haven't listed an option for here.
Also, the political atmosphere that led to the compromises in the Constitutional Convention are no longer applicable to our current status.