The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[ryzno]

And again, the US isn't a two-candidate system. At the last election 80% of states could choose between six candidates, both registered and as write-ins, while 100% of states plus DC could choose between three.

I don't know if it's GA being GA slow but, we had 4(touchscreen) pages of people that had qualified(including people that pulled out) to be voted for on our ballots. I had to go to the last page to find the Great Orange One. And yes we had the write in too.

 

[PocketZeven]

I haven't accused you - you literally did it! I quoted you doing it, and showed you where you did it. You added a further qualifier to try to change the initial conditions after I had responded to the original post. This is what you did...

... and I did in fact ask why you did it as the very first sentence of my very first response after you did so.

Great. To reiterate, that's not exactly unusual in world politics. A UK party leader can become Prime Minister with 0.0013% of the votes cast, and 0.0004% of the possible votes. That's never happened either.

Assuming your first "US" should be "UK" (otherwise that's gibberish), this is why I made the point - in two posts - that in the UK we do not directly elect the leader. In fact our head of state is actually unelected - but again, electing a leader with 23% of the popular vote isn't exactly an unusual thing.

As for private citizens becoming PM... there's quite a big concern in the UK right now that Nigel Farage could soon occupy a seat of power despite never having been in the House of Commons. Farage has never been an MP - although he has been an MEP - yet could conceptually be PM in the next five years.

Since you like hypotheticals you could indeed become Prime Minister from being an ordinary citizen for as little as £500. It's unlikely, but possible.


And again, the US isn't a two-candidate system. At the last election 80% of states could choose between six candidates, both registered and as write-ins, while 100% of states plus DC could choose between three.

edit: I did not move the goalpost. You assumed I did. I referenced that a candidate can with 23% of the votes. You know that in practice it is a 2 candidate situation come voting time. I did not even state you can only vote for 2 candidates or that it is a 2 candidate system. You also conveniently ignored the part referencing that one can win with only a quarter of the votes and win the majority electoral vote. That does not happen in other countries like you responded. Your example is apples with peaches.

To reiterate for you: Only in the USA in a direct election of a president can a candidate win with 50.2% majority and at the same time only amassing 23%. Now clear enough?

Again this is how with an example of 23% (the titel in the url inaccurately says 27) :
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/5001...residency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote


The Uk's system is more similar to the netherlands. Where you vote for the party and there is a multi party system. You dont actually directly vote for the prime minister.

 

[Famine]

I did not move the goalpost. You assumed I did.

Dude, give it up. You literally added a qualifier, after I responded to the original, unmodified message. I even asked you why you did it. I've requoted the entire exchange again showing you doing it. It's right there in black and white (and indigo). It is what you did. You dunked a giant fallacy; I don't care whether you did it on purpose or not. You did it. It's right there. Again.

Learn from it and move on. No-one gains anything from this continued insistence that you didn't do it, least of all you. Give it up, for the love of bees.

 

[Swagger897]

I don't know if it's GA being GA slow but, we had 4(touchscreen) pages of people that had qualified(including people that pulled out) to be voted for on our ballots. I had to go to the last page to find the Great Orange One. And yes we had the write in too.

Did you do early voting? I recall only seeing 3 with a write-in option (for general voting).

You know that in practice it is a 2 candidate situation come voting time.

No... Come voting time there is nearly always more than 2 options... You're thinking more of a debate type setting where those who don't qualify don't make an appearance.

 

[PocketZeven]

No... Come voting time there is nearly always more than 2 options... You're thinking more of a debate type setting where those who don't qualify don't make an appearance.

I will explain further, the point was that one can win a majority of electoral votes with only 23% popular vote. Based on an example with a minimum of 2 candidates. I did not exclude other candidate options. The 23% is an hypothetical to begin with.

edit:

In many other countries where a leader is directly elected, they can do so with about the same proportion of the popular vote as in the USA.

Perhaps you overlooked my question, is the UK prime minister in your example directly elected by the people?

To avoid confusion the premise I originally meant to say was that in a US election one can win a majority of 50,1% electoral votes. I dont know if that is possible in other countries. To win with a 50.1 % majority vote, but having less then 25% popular vote.

 

[ryzno]

Did you do early voting? I recall only seeing 3 with a write-in option (for general voting).

Yeah I usually do to avoid the election day cluster...., it was in DeKalb, I don't know if that made a difference but last vote we did for governor I voted in Gwinnett cause we moved and it seemed a lot more organized.

 

[Famine]

Perhaps you overlooked my question, is the UK prime minister in your example directly elected by the people?

Difficult to overlook something that hasn't happened. That post is the first of yours in which that question appears.

Fortunately I'd answered it three times before you even asked:

Meanwhile the public gets no vote in the leader of the UK.

No relevance in particular - although the party leader who becomes Prime Minister can also be elected (indirectly) to the position by such a small vote share. And often does - Theresa May's Conservatives won in 2017 with 29%, and that was an increase compared to the 24.5% for Cameron's Conservatives in 2015.

Assuming your first "US" should be "UK" (otherwise that's gibberish), this is why I made the point - in two posts - that in the UK we do not directly elect the leader.

To avoid confusion the premise I originally meant to say was that in a US election one can win a majority of 50,1% electoral votes. I dont know if that is possible in other countries. To win with a 50.1 % majority vote, but having less then 25% popular vote.

And what you actually said was:

One can win the presidency with only 23% of the popular vote in the USA. That isnt my idea of democracy.

To which I responded that it's about the same as any other nation. Becoming the political leader of a nation with 23% of the vote is just not that unusual, regardless of system. Mark Rutte is Prime Minister of the Netherlands, and his party scored 21.3% of votes cast (17.9% of votes) at the 2017 General Election. Is that your idea of democracy?


People can only respond to what you post, not what you mean to post, and even in your above clarification it's fuzzy. I think what you're actually trying to say is that someone in the USA can become President after scoring just 23% of the vote, even against just one other candidate, if they happen to win the States required to give them >50% of the Electoral College votes.

As a hypothetical it doesn't really go far enough. They'd only need 1 vote in each of California, New York, Florida, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Georgia, and Michigan to score 239 EC electors, while every other vote cast in the entire country went against them. That'd be 15 votes to what looks like about 75 million, or 0.00002% of the votes cast, still winning the Presidency.

And that's never going to happen either.

 

[Biggles]

Mark Rutte is Prime Minister of the Netherlands, and his party scored 21.3% of votes cast (17.9% of votes) at the 2017 General Election. Is that your idea of democracy?.

Well, yes it might be, as the Netherlands has a (fairly complicated) system of proportional representation. So whereas the PM & his party may only have a relatively low percentage of the total vote, in order to effectively govern he is totally dependent on the support of other parties. To many people this makes the most sense, as it gives more people a voice in forming government policy, as opposed to the virtual dictatorship of the PM of the ruling party in the UK. In practice, all the systems have their pro & cons.

I think the problem with the US system, is it purports to be logical & have checks & balances, but in practice it's based on a structure that was required to cobble together the nation in 1776 & looks increasingly anachronistic & dysfunctional. Having a constitution created in 1776 makes it very difficult to bring the system up-to-date to reflect 21st century realities.

 

[PocketZeven]

To which I responded that it's about the same as any other nation. Becoming the political leader of a nation with 23% of the vote is just not that unusual, regardless of system. Mark Rutte is Prime Minister of the Netherlands, and his party scored 21.3% of votes cast (17.9% of votes) at the 2017 General Election. Is that your idea of democracy?


People can only respond to what you post, not what you mean to post, and even in your above clarification it's fuzzy. I think what you're actually trying to say is that someone in the USA can become President after scoring just 23% of the vote, even against just one other candidate, if they happen to win the States required to give them >50% of the Electoral College votes.

.

The UK and Netherlands dont vote directly for a president. So it isnt very accurate to compare the US with them. Also there isnt winner takes all system in the provinces. Which is the nearest equivelent to states. Also the president in the UK and netherlands dont have the same executive power as a US president. So its unfair to state that it is as undemocratic as the electoral college. It is arguably more democratic in some ways. That said that would have meant that Mitch Mcconnel might be President as majority leader.

Exactly what I meant concerning the 23% vote statement. Ill try to to be less stubborn and follow instructions on how to formulate more accurately. I am not as a strong writer as you and ask for some more empathy.

edit: added some comment

 

[Famine]

To many people this makes the most sense, as it gives more people a voice in forming government policy, as opposed to the virtual dictatorship of the PM of the ruling party in the UK.

Our last three Prime Ministers have all had to form a coalition with another party in order to carry the required number of votes to "control" Parliament. The current one can't even count on that, with a minority government even in coalition with a tiny party of insane religious nutjobs meaning he's been the first PM in history to lose his first three votes... and in fact has never won one to date.

It seems quite far from dictatorial, virtual or otherwise.

I think the problem with the US system, is it purports to be logical & have checks & balances, but in practice it's based on a structure that was required to cobble together the nation in 1776 & looks increasingly anachronistic & dysfunctional. Having a constitution created in 1776 makes it very difficult to bring the system up-to-date to reflect 21st century realities.

Just because something is old doesn't mean it is wrong. The Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, is a particularly forward-thinking document which created overarching law to prevent a Government from denying rights. It also installs three protections, with the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches all designed to act as a check on each other to ensure no one (or two) can change the law against the Constitution.

There are... foibles. The fact that the Executive branch can select the Judicial branch is one, although the fact it can only select new ones and not replace existing ones is a protection against abuse. Well, some abuse.


The issue with the popular vote selecting a President is that the President is someone charged with leading a legal construct, not a people. The USA is not so much a place as it is some laws designed to allow 50 smaller countries to work together under a common umbrella intended to protect them all - common policing and military, a common currency and economy, external border protection, and so on. Each has its own laws, based on its own values (Utah is a particularly good example of a state with its own values) and each has its own government to create these laws and policing to enforce them. The Constitution is just a document that governs how the 50 of them work together, and the President is elected to protect that, thus he's working for the States rather than the people.

In principle, what this should mean is that the people of each State should be electing the people to represent their State, but when it comes to electing the Executive branch - because their role is to protect the Constitution on behalf of the States - the States should be electing the President.

In fact this is what happens. The people vote within each State, the State takes the results and casts its vote for the person the people voted for. It'd be pretty straightforward to say that each State says which person it wants, and the person who gets most States wins. However, I'm sure you can see the problems with that right away: people who live in States with small populations get disproportionately more say than those who live in large ones. Someone living in California, with 12% of the US population, would end up having one-twelfth the voting power of someone in Connecticut (I'm not taking eligible voter populations into account, but this should be roughly proportional and won't produce changes of more than a couple of percent magnitude). A Presidential candidate could - and this is a more conceivable "could" than the example laid against the EC - win with 17% of the vote if they carried all 25 of the low population States and DC while their main rival scores almost 80% of the popular vote.

The Electoral College is an attempt to even that out. Instead of each State getting a single vote, they get a number of votes according to their population size. California gets 55 EC votes, Connecticut gets 7. That doesn't quite even things out - it puts a Californian voter at roughly 30% less relevant than a Connecticutian - but it tightens it all up a lot. It's essentially a good idea.


The issue I have with the EC is that it's - almost always, in almost every state, in almost every election - winner takes all within each State. Win California and you get 55 votes. That makes a Californian non-Democrat voter 100% less relevant than a Californian Democrat voter; flip that around for States like Alabama. This is an argument commonly levelled against people who abstain or vote for third parties: your vote is wasted unless you vote for the winner*, and the EC enables it.

Instead, the State should send EC votes in identical proportion to how voters actually voted, with a threshold required to gain a vote and the winner gaining any unallocated EC votes. In 2016 California voted as follows:
61.73% Clinton
31.62% Trump
3.37% Johnson
1.96% Stein
0.28% McMullin

With 55 EC votes, each 1.82% of the vote share should be an EC vote. That splits as follows:
33.9 Clinton
17.4 Trump
1.9 Johnson
1.1 Stein
0.2 McMullin

As only full 1.82% shares count, that would round to:
33 Clinton
17 Trump
1 Johnson
1 Stein
0 McMullin

That's 52 EC votes. The remaining three go to Clinton as winner, giving her 36. If 5.700 more people had turned up and voted Libertarian, Gary Johnson would have had two votes and Clinton 35. In the real world, Clinton got 55.

Over in Texas (38 EC votes, 2.63%/EC vote), that method as applied to 2016 would give:
Trump - 52.23%; 19.8; 19+2
Clinton - 43.24%; 16.4; 16
Johnson - 3.16%; 1.2; 1
Stein - 0.80%; 0.3; 0
McMullin - 0.47%; 0.2; 0

So now from those two State instead of Clinton 55, Trump 38, we have Clinton 40, Trump 38, Johnson 2. Want to see how it looks for the entire Presidential election? I know I do...

Clinton - 267
Trump - 267
Johnson - 2
Stein - 1
McMullin - 1

Well then. I've put this into a GoogleDoc for anyone who cares to look at the calculations:




Nobody's vote is wasted, every EC vote has to be fought for, no States can be ignored as per @Liquid's charts, the effective two-party system ends, and the people are represented, all while retaining the purpose of the election as the States selecting a candidate to protect the Constitution that governs how they all work together.

There's a couple of anomalies in there, which seem to centre on the low population (and low EC vote) states - you need 33.3% to get one EC vote in three-vote states, so it's possible for nobody to score enough to get that vote, and the candidate with the most would win them all - and California in fact has the highest unallocated EC vote count (3) in this case, but it actually works quite well. I'd want to adjust each State's EC vote count though, to even out the populations more effectively.

*It's not, but this is what people think

 

[PocketZeven]

Our last three Prime Ministers have all had to form a coalition with another party in order to carry the required number of votes to "control" Parliament. The current one can't even count on that, with a minority government even in coalition with a tiny party of insane religious nutjobs meaning he's been the first PM in history to lose his first three votes... and in fact has never won one to date.

It seems quite far from dictatorial, virtual or otherwise.

Just because something is old doesn't mean it is wrong. The Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, is a particularly forward-thinking document which created overarching law to prevent a Government from denying rights. It also installs three protections, with the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches all designed to act as a check on each other to ensure no one (or two) can change the law against the Constitution.

There are... foibles. The fact that the Executive branch can select the Judicial branch is one, although the fact it can only select new ones and not replace existing ones is a protection against abuse. Well, some abuse.


The issue with the popular vote selecting a President is that the President is someone charged with leading a legal construct, not a people. The USA is not so much a place as it is some laws designed to allow 50 smaller countries to work together under a common umbrella intended to protect them all - common policing and military, a common currency and economy, external border protection, and so on. Each has its own laws, based on its own values (Utah is a particularly good example of a state with its own values) and each has its own government to create these laws and policing to enforce them. The Constitution is just a document that governs how the 50 of the work together, and the President is elected to protect that, thus he's working for the States rather than the people.

In principle, what this should mean is that the people of each State should be electing the people to represent their State, but when it comes to electing the Executive branch - because their role is to protect the Constitution on behalf of the States - the States should be electing the President.

In fact this is what happens. The people vote within each State, the State takes the results and casts its vote for the person the people voted for. It'd be pretty straightforward to say that each State says which person it wants, and the person who gets most States wins. However, I'm sure you can see the problems with that right away: people who live in States with small populations get disproportionately more say than those who live in large ones. Someone living in California, with 12% of the US population, would end up having one-twelfth the voting power of someone in Connecticut (I'm not taking eligible voter populations into account, but this should be roughly proportional and won't produce changes of more than a couple of percent magnitude). A Presidential candidate could - and this is a more conceivable "could" than the example laid against the EC - win with 17% of the vote if they carried all 25 of the low population States and DC while their main rival scores almost 80% of the popular vote.

The Electoral College is an attempt to even that out. Instead of each State getting a single vote, they get a number of votes according to their population size. California gets 55 EC votes, Connecticut gets 7. That doesn't quite even things out - it puts a Californian voter at roughly 30% less relevant than a Connecticutian - but it tightens it all up a lot. It's essentially a good idea.


The issue I have with the EC is that it's - almost always, in almost every state, in almost every election - winner takes all within each State. Win California and you get 55 votes. That makes a Californian non-Democrat voter 100% less relevant than a Californian Democrat voter; flip that around for States like Alabama. This is an argument commonly levelled against people who abstain or vote for third parties: your vote is wasted unless you vote for the winner*, and the EC enables it.

Instead, the State should send EC votes in identical proportion to how voters actually voted, with a threshold required to gain a vote and the winner gaining any unallocated EC votes. In 2016 California voted as follows:
61.73% Clinton
31.62% Trump
3.37% Johnson
1.96% Stein
0.28% McMullin

With 55 EC votes, each 1.82% of the vote share should be an EC vote. That splits as follows:
33.9 Clinton
17.4 Trump
1.9 Johnson
1.1 Stein
0.2 McMullin

As only full 1.82% shares count, that would round to:
33 Clinton
17 Trump
1 Johnson
1 Stein
0 McMullin

That's 52 EC votes. The remaining three go to Clinton as winner, giving her 36. If 5.700 more people had turned up and voted Libertarian, Gary Johnson would have had two votes and Clinton 35. In the real world, Clinton got 55.

Over in Texas (38 EC votes, 2.63%/EC vote), that method as applied to 2016 would give:
Trump - 52.23%; 19.8; 19+2
Clinton - 43.24%; 16.4; 16
Johnson - 3.16%; 1.2; 1
Stein - 0.80%; 0.3; 0
McMullin - 0.47%; 0.2; 0

So now from those two State instead of Clinton 55, Trump 38, we have Clinton 40, Trump 38, Johnson 2. Want to see how it looks for the entire Presidential election? I know I do...

Clinton - 254
Trump - 253
Johnson - 2
Stein - 1
McMullin - 1

Well then. Hello Madam President. I've put this into a GoogleDoc for anyone who cares to look at the calculations:




Nobody's vote is wasted, every EC vote has to be fought for, no States can be ignored as per @Liquid's charts, the effective two-party system ends, and the people are represented, all while retaining the purpose of the election as the States selecting a candidate to protect the Constitution that governs how they all work together.

There's a couple of anomalies in there, which seem to centre on the low population (and low EC vote) states. .

*It's not, but this is what people think

It is much less democratic in my opinion if a person in a less populous states have more weight in their vote then one in the more populous state. The whole origin of the electoral voting system is because of the southern less populated slaveowner states. I dont think the factors that counted back then are not relevant anymore. People can still vote for state governments.

 

[Famine]

It is much less democratic in my opinion if a person in a less populous states have more weight in their vote then one in the more populous state.

I covered that:

It'd be pretty straightforward to say that each State says which person it wants, and the person who gets most States wins. However, I'm sure you can see the problems with that right away: people who live in States with small populations get disproportionately more say than those who live in large ones. Someone living in California, with 12% of the US population, would end up having one-twelfth the voting power of someone in Connecticut (I'm not taking eligible voter populations into account, but this should be roughly proportional and won't produce changes of more than a couple of percent magnitude). A Presidential candidate could - and this is a more conceivable "could" than the example laid against the EC - win with 17% of the vote if they carried all 25 of the low population States and DC while their main rival scores almost 80% of the popular vote.

The Electoral College is an attempt to even that out.

 

[PocketZeven]

I covered that:

I wasnt arguing that statement, but agreeing. However I want to learn more about the statement that the intention of the electoral college was not to give more power to the south, but the premise that the president is in service tot the states and not the people? Was that really what the electoral college was intended for?

If that were reality, it would make sense to have a system to let the president be nominated by congress (that accurately represent the states) and then voted on by the senate (also represent the states).

 

[Famine]

However I want to learn more about the statement that the intention of the electoral college was not to give more power to the south, but the premise that the president is in service tot the states and not the people?

That's two separate statements smooshed into one.

The job of President (Executive) is to serve to protect the Constitution from the excesses of the Legislative and Judicial branches, and the Constitution is the foundation of the legal construct of the United States by which the member States cooperate to provide greater protection than they can individually offer while operating under their own internal laws.

The Electoral College is intended to even out the voting power in Presidential elections so that small population States do not have a disproportionately large voting power over large ones (or vice versa).

If that were reality, it would make sense to have a system to let the president be nominated by congress (that accurately represent the states) and then voted on by the senate (also represent the states).

That would be the Legislative branch picking the Executive branch - who can then pick the Judicial branch. I don't think I need to spell out how terrible an idea that is, given that the Legislative branch is pretty much bought and paid for by lobbyists already.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's two separate statements smooshed into one.

The job of President (Executive) is to serve to protect the Constitution from the excesses of the Legislative and Judicial branches, and the Constitution is the foundation of the legal construct of the United States by which the member States cooperate to provide greater protection than they can individually offer while operating under their own internal laws.

The Electoral College is intended to even out the voting power in Presidential elections so that small population States do not have a disproportionately large voting power over large ones (or vice versa).

That would be the Legislative branch picking the Executive branch - who can then pick the Judicial branch. I don't think I need to spell out how terrible an idea that is, given that the Legislative branch is pretty much bought and paid for by lobbyists already.

Are presidents free of lobbyist influence though? I would argue that risk of a lobbyist influenced presidential candidate would be much higher. A bi/multi partisan nominee will be less inclined to polarising politics.

Edit: As for lobbying I would like to see much stricter regulations

In some definitions the president actually is described as serving congress and not the states. So in that sense would make more sense. Also an congress nomination would require bipartisanship and actually encourage multi partysystem. The foremost reason, I think, for the domination of 2 parties is the direct election of presidents in the US.

 

[Danoff]

Are presidents free of lobbyist influence though?

The goal is to put the three branches at odds with each other, to ensure that one branch is not beholden to another.

In some definitions the president actually is described as serving congress and not the states.

Like that...

Each branch is independent of the others, for the purpose of preventing one from taking over. The supreme court is the only appointed branch, and it's appointed by a joint confirmation of the other two branches. It is essential that the president is elected independently of the election process of congress.

 

[Biggles]

The problem I see with this is as follows: one of the three branches of government is nominated by the Executive & confirmed by the Senate. The Senate is very heavily weighted towards the smaller population states, where for example, Wymong, with a population of a little more than half a million, gets to choose the same number of senators as California with a population of just under 40 million. By controlling the confirmation of judges to the Supreme Court the smaller states exert an influence not just on the Senate, but also on the Judiciary. The most obvious recent example of this was the failure of the Senate to bring the nomination of Merrick Garland to a vote. As a consequence, the Republican party has been able to control the Executive (with a minority of the popular vote), the Senate (representing a minority of the US population) & - via the Executive branch & Senate - the Judiciary.

 

[Danoff]

As a consequence, the Republican party has been able to control the Executive (with a minority of the popular vote), the Senate (representing a minority of the US population) & - via the Executive branch & Senate - the Judiciary.

The smaller states have much less control over the Executive than they do over the Senate because electors are population-based. The electoral college is horrific, but it is supposed to bear some semblance to a popular vote.

The fact that the judiciary is partisan at all is awful. There is a right answer (or at least a reasonable answer based on reasonable interpretation of the law) for most supreme court cases, and it has nothing to do with the politics of the judge. It's amazing to me that the democrats can find judges that will break ranks with the actual law (2nd amendment) and favor, for example, an unconstitutional gun ban. And it's amazing to me that the republicans can find judges that will break ranks with the actual law (equal protection) and rule against, for example, gay marriage. It was clear at the time that the supreme court should strike down obamacare based on any reasonable reading of the interstate commerce clause. But instead, judges went to extraordinary lengths (setting an absolutely disgusting precedent) to find a way to let it through.

I guess the judiciary comes down to partisan people picking partisan judges. Of course the supremes are biased, they're picked specifically to be biased by the pickers. Still I find it quite terrible.

Even more terrible is that I have to cast a vote for every local judge (just so that my political opinion has a say on whether or not that person was drunk driving??) and yet I cannot cast a vote for the highest judge. That one makes about zero sense to me.

 

[PocketZeven]

The goal is to put the three branches at odds with each other, to ensure that one branch is not beholden to another.



Like that...

Each branch is independent of the others, for the purpose of preventing one from taking over. The supreme court is the only appointed branch, and it's appointed by a joint confirmation of the other two branches. It is essential that the president is elected independently of the election process of congress.

There pros and cons (like any political system), but I respect the idea. But now there is president that has been disrespecting the checks and balances (almost) without consequence. Even calling it unconstitutional with the majority of the party repeating that false statement and his followers eating it up.

 

[Rallywagon]

There pros and cons (like any political system), but I respect the idea. But now there is president that has been disrespecting the checks and balances (almost) without consequence. Even calling it unconstitutional with the majority of the party repeating that false statement and his followers eating it up.

And yet, the prime check, being impeachment, is something you are against, for "political" reasons...
I just had this scenario run through my head:
Imagine a flock of sheep forging around in their field. Frank, a clever little sheep, whispers over to his friend George, "hey, George, check out that sheep near the gate, his skin doesnt seem to fit right, and I think I see some rather long canines in his mouth, I think it might be a wolf!"
George stairs over at the wolf apprehensively "I think you're right Frank, what should we do? We need to expose him before he wrecks the flock. Maybe you should go over there and pull off his mask."
"Nah" replies Frank "I dont think any of the other sheep will believe it and I dont wanna cause a fuss, let's just leave it be and hope for the best."
This is your argument in a nutshell. You cant say "checks and balances" and then default to not using those checks and balances because of politics. I mean, you can, but then your just a hypocrite that let your flock die to a wolf.

 

[PocketZeven]

And yet, the prime check, being impeachment, is something you are against, for "political" reasons...
I just had this scenario run through my head:
Imagine a flock of sheep forging around in their field. Frank, a clever little sheep, whispers over to his friend George, "hey, George, check out that sheep near the gate, his skin doesnt seem to fit right, and I think I see some rather long canines in his mouth, I think it might be a wolf!"
George stairs over at the wolf apprehensively "I think you're right Frank, what should we do? We need to expose him before he wrecks the flock. Maybe you should go over there and pull off his mask."
"Nah" replies Frank "I dont think any of the other sheep will believe it and I dont wanna cause a fuss, let's just leave it be and hope for the best."
This is your argument in a nutshell. You cant say "checks and balances" and then default to not using those checks and balances because of politics. I mean, you can, but then your just a hypocrite that let your flock die to a wolf.

I am against, only because Trump is reacting exactly as I expected. Your example lacks much nuance though.
More like:

The sheep (wolf) is chosen as the leader of the sheep, helped by a russian wolf pack. According to sheeplaw the sitting leader sheep cannot be indicted. However Frank and George choose to impeach him succesfully and try to indict him for eating heir friends as a "normal"sheep. But as a result of the impeachment, Sheep Mike (second in command) is the new leader by default and choses to pardon the sheep wolf. He returns with his spoil to the pack without facing any consequences of his killings and a full bully and spoils he brings back to his pack.

But I truly do understand your point of view. Always try to do the right thing.

edit: My argument in my version of the story is to make sure his successor wont pardon him, so the wolfsheep can face the punishment for eating Frank's and George's friends. And also avoiding the risk of him being chosen to be sheep leader even longer so he can eat even more of Frank's and george's friends.

 

[Rallywagon]

I am against, only because Trump is reacting exactly as I expected. Your example lacks much nuance though.
More like:

The sheep (wolf) is chosen as the leader of the sheep, helped by a russian wolf pack. According to sheeplaw the sitting leader sheep cannot be indicted. However Frank and George choose to impeach him succesfully and try to indict him for eating heir friends as a "normal"sheep. But as a result of the impeachment, Sheep Mike (second in command) is the new leader by default and choses to pardon the sheep wolf. He returns with his spoil to the pack without facing any consequences of his killings and a full bully and spoils he brings back to his pack.

But I truly do understand your point of view. Always try to do the right thing.

edit: My argument in my version of the story is to make sure his successor wont pardon him, so the wolfsheep can face the punishment for eating Frank's and George's friends. And also avoiding the risk of him being chosen to be sheep leader even longer so he can eat even more of Frank's and george's friends.

Except that pardons cant be used in cases of impeachment. So that's not something Pence could do. So again, you're jeopardizing your flock and setting precedence for the successor (or even the current) leader wolf to just keep on ignoring the flocks constitution. You are taking your best tool to fight wolf leader ship and making it impotent by lack of use, when you should be using it most.

 

[PocketZeven]

Except that pardons cant be used in cases of impeachment. So that's not something Pence could do. So again, you're jeopardizing your flock and setting precedence for the successor (or even the current) leader wolf to just keep on ignoring the flocks constitution. You are taking your best tool to fight wolf leader ship and making it impotent by lack of use, when you should be using it most.

Not pardon for the impeachment, but his crimes (eating sheep) for when he is a private sheep/wolf again. I might not have written that clearly. I might have mistakenly implied pardon for impeachment.

You are right I might be jeopardizing the flock, but I personally think it is more important that the wolfsheep should not walk away without any punishment for his crimes. There other ways that have helped preventing him to eat more sheep, but it bothers me a lot that in a succesfull impeachment scenario the wolfsheep is going scott-free.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Our last three Prime Ministers have all had to form a coalition with another party in order to carry the required number of votes to "control" Parliament. The current one can't even count on that, with a minority government even in coalition with a tiny party of insane religious nutjobs meaning he's been the first PM in history to lose his first three votes... and in fact has never won one to date.

It seems quite far from dictatorial, virtual or otherwise.

Just because something is old doesn't mean it is wrong. The Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, is a particularly forward-thinking document which created overarching law to prevent a Government from denying rights. It also installs three protections, with the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches all designed to act as a check on each other to ensure no one (or two) can change the law against the Constitution.

There are... foibles. The fact that the Executive branch can select the Judicial branch is one, although the fact it can only select new ones and not replace existing ones is a protection against abuse. Well, some abuse.


The issue with the popular vote selecting a President is that the President is someone charged with leading a legal construct, not a people. The USA is not so much a place as it is some laws designed to allow 50 smaller countries to work together under a common umbrella intended to protect them all - common policing and military, a common currency and economy, external border protection, and so on. Each has its own laws, based on its own values (Utah is a particularly good example of a state with its own values) and each has its own government to create these laws and policing to enforce them. The Constitution is just a document that governs how the 50 of them work together, and the President is elected to protect that, thus he's working for the States rather than the people.

In principle, what this should mean is that the people of each State should be electing the people to represent their State, but when it comes to electing the Executive branch - because their role is to protect the Constitution on behalf of the States - the States should be electing the President.

In fact this is what happens. The people vote within each State, the State takes the results and casts its vote for the person the people voted for. It'd be pretty straightforward to say that each State says which person it wants, and the person who gets most States wins. However, I'm sure you can see the problems with that right away: people who live in States with small populations get disproportionately more say than those who live in large ones. Someone living in California, with 12% of the US population, would end up having one-twelfth the voting power of someone in Connecticut (I'm not taking eligible voter populations into account, but this should be roughly proportional and won't produce changes of more than a couple of percent magnitude). A Presidential candidate could - and this is a more conceivable "could" than the example laid against the EC - win with 17% of the vote if they carried all 25 of the low population States and DC while their main rival scores almost 80% of the popular vote.

The Electoral College is an attempt to even that out. Instead of each State getting a single vote, they get a number of votes according to their population size. California gets 55 EC votes, Connecticut gets 7. That doesn't quite even things out - it puts a Californian voter at roughly 30% less relevant than a Connecticutian - but it tightens it all up a lot. It's essentially a good idea.


The issue I have with the EC is that it's - almost always, in almost every state, in almost every election - winner takes all within each State. Win California and you get 55 votes. That makes a Californian non-Democrat voter 100% less relevant than a Californian Democrat voter; flip that around for States like Alabama. This is an argument commonly levelled against people who abstain or vote for third parties: your vote is wasted unless you vote for the winner*, and the EC enables it.

Instead, the State should send EC votes in identical proportion to how voters actually voted, with a threshold required to gain a vote and the winner gaining any unallocated EC votes. In 2016 California voted as follows:
61.73% Clinton
31.62% Trump
3.37% Johnson
1.96% Stein
0.28% McMullin

With 55 EC votes, each 1.82% of the vote share should be an EC vote. That splits as follows:
33.9 Clinton
17.4 Trump
1.9 Johnson
1.1 Stein
0.2 McMullin

As only full 1.82% shares count, that would round to:
33 Clinton
17 Trump
1 Johnson
1 Stein
0 McMullin

That's 52 EC votes. The remaining three go to Clinton as winner, giving her 36. If 5.700 more people had turned up and voted Libertarian, Gary Johnson would have had two votes and Clinton 35. In the real world, Clinton got 55.

Over in Texas (38 EC votes, 2.63%/EC vote), that method as applied to 2016 would give:
Trump - 52.23%; 19.8; 19+2
Clinton - 43.24%; 16.4; 16
Johnson - 3.16%; 1.2; 1
Stein - 0.80%; 0.3; 0
McMullin - 0.47%; 0.2; 0

So now from those two State instead of Clinton 55, Trump 38, we have Clinton 40, Trump 38, Johnson 2. Want to see how it looks for the entire Presidential election? I know I do...

Clinton - 254
Trump - 253
Johnson - 2
Stein - 1
McMullin - 1

Well then. Hello Madam President. I've put this into a GoogleDoc for anyone who cares to look at the calculations:




Nobody's vote is wasted, every EC vote has to be fought for, no States can be ignored as per @Liquid's charts, the effective two-party system ends, and the people are represented, all while retaining the purpose of the election as the States selecting a candidate to protect the Constitution that governs how they all work together.

There's a couple of anomalies in there, which seem to centre on the low population (and low EC vote) states - you need 33.3% to get one EC vote in three-vote states, so it's possible for nobody to score enough to get that vote, and the candidate with the most would win them all - and California in fact has the highest unallocated EC vote count (3) in this case, but it actually works quite well. I'd want to adjust each State's EC vote count though, to even out the populations more effectively.

*It's not, but this is what people think

I appreciate this effort quite a bit. But isn't this effectively putting the presidential election to popular vote? The numbers are pretty similar.

Clinton - 254 (49.7%)
Trump - 253 (49.5%)
Johnson - 2 (0.39%)
Stein - 1 (0.19%)
McMullin - 1 (0.19%)

2016 Popular Vote:
Clinton: 48.2%
Trump: 46.1%
Johnson: 3.28%
Stein: 1.07%
McMullin: 0.54%

Help me understand, why is your proposed method better than "just" having a popular vote? Honest question. It seems like it actually further reduces the ability of third party candidates to gather momentum, compared with a direct popular vote.

I'd like to see what would happen if state legislatures picked the president rather than the general population. Its one degree removed from complete democracy, but you are at least voting for who will be voting. What I like about this idea is that, presumably, you have a better chance of actually knowing your state rep (I don't personally know mine, but he's readily accessible in a way my US rep and definitely Kamala Harris and Dianne Fienstein are not) and I think representative democracy works better when the districts are somewhat small and have something of a tangible community. So it goes like this: Your local districts selects one among the group to represent the community at the state level and vests within that individual the responsibility of selecting/voting for a president...a sort of trickle-up republic which could, perhaps, serve as a check against uninformed mob rule. I could see how it could further entrench the establishment though....

 

[PocketZeven]

I appreciate this effort quite a bit. But isn't this effectively putting the presidential election to popular vote? The numbers are pretty similar.

Clinton - 254 (49.7%)
Trump - 253 (49.5%)
Johnson - 2 (0.39%)
Stein - 1 (0.19%)
McMullin - 1 (0.19%)

2016 Popular Vote:
Clinton: 48.2%
Trump: 46.1%
Johnson: 3.28%
Stein: 1.07%
McMullin: 0.54%

Help me understand, why is your proposed method better than "just" having a popular vote? Honest question. It seems like it actually further reduces the ability of third party candidates to gather momentum, compared with a direct popular vote.

I'd like to see what would happen if state legislatures picked the president rather than the general population. Its one degree removed from complete democracy, but you are at least voting for who will be voting. What I like about this idea is that, presumably, you have a better chance of actually knowing your state rep (I don't personally know mine, but he's readily accessible in a way my US rep and definitely Kamala Harris and Dianne Fienstein are not) and I think representative democracy works better when the districts are somewhat small and have something of a tangible community. So it goes like this: Your local districts selects one among the group to represent the community at the state level and vests within that individual the responsibility of selecting/voting for a president...a sort of trickle-up republic which could, perhaps, serve as a check against uninformed mob rule. I could see how it could further entrench the establishment though....

I believe he explained in this part:

The issue with the popular vote selecting a President is that the President is someone charged with leading a legal construct, not a people. The USA is not so much a place as it is some laws designed to allow 50 smaller countries to work together under a common umbrella intended to protect them all - common policing and military, a common currency and economy, external border protection, and so on. Each has its own laws, based on its own values (Utah is a particularly good example of a state with its own values) and each has its own government to create these laws and policing to enforce them. The Constitution is just a document that governs how the 50 of them work together, and the President is elected to protect that, thus he's working for the States rather than the people.

In principle, what this should mean is that the people of each State should be electing the people to represent their State, but when it comes to electing the Executive branch - because their role is to protect the Constitution on behalf of the States - the States should be electing the President.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I believe he explained in this part:

Right, I understand that. But effectively, it becomes a popular vote at that point...just one where the population advantage of larger states is slightly reduced.

 

[Famine]

Help me understand, why is your proposed method better than "just" having a popular vote?

It maintains the purpose of the Presidency - a representative of the 50 states to defend the glue that binds them.

The President is not a representative of the people, but of the legal construct of "the United States" - the effective agreement of 50 different cultures and territories to cooperate for mutual benefit while retaining their own identities.

As such, the President should be elected by the states, not the people, but directed by the people of each state (because that's what the states are).

Turning it into a single, Stateswide popular vote ignores why and how the USA exists. I agree my method brings the result closer to the outcome of the popular vote, but it maintains the principle.


Also, fun fact, McMullin's polling is disproportionately high because he scored over 20% in UT (unsurprisingly) - the only third-party candidate to hit double digits anywhere next was Johnson's 9.8% in NM). That absolutely should be included as Utah's opinion - but wasn't, because the EC is mostly winner takes all* - and definitely not as part of the opinion of the other 49+1.


Just double-checking my numbers, there's several occasions where most voters in a State went completely unrepresented. Arizona (Trump 48.7%), Colorado (Clinton 48.2%), Florida (Trump 49.0%), Michigan (Trump 47.5%), Minnesota (Clinton 47.3%), Nevada (Clinton 47.9%), New Hampshire (Clinton 47%), New Mexico (Clinton 48.2%), North Carolina (Trump 49.8%), Pennsylvania (Trump 48.2%), Utah (Trump 45.5%), Virginia (Clinton 49.7%) and Wisconsin (Trump 47.2%) are all states that - eventually - gave 100% of their Electoral College votes to a candidate that did not win a majority. Also Maine, although that's a special situation.

 

[Rallywagon]

Right, I understand that. But effectively, it becomes a popular vote at that point...just one where the population advantage of larger states is slightly reduced.

I think most states require delegates to vote to the states popular vote winner, this just adds a ranked choice rather than winner takes all system.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I think most states require delegates to vote to the states popular vote winner, this just adds a ranked choice rather than winner takes all system.

I don't think what @Famine is proposing is the same thing as ranked choice. Ranked choice would probably have pushed Johnson and Green much higher in delegate counts, if coupled with Famine's proportional delegate assignment.

Edit: I wonder what the result would have been in 2016 if the following conditions were true:

1. Every state used rank choice.
2. Assume Clinton voters would have ranked Stein #2
3. Assume Trump voters would have ranked Johnson #2
4. Assume Johnson voters would have ranked Trump #2
5. Assume Stein voters would have ranked Clinton #2

Obviously this is contrived and limited (it's hard to say who Trump and Clinton supporters would have ranked 2nd, let alone 3rd or 4th - A lot more Clinton voters would probably have ranked Johnson #2 than Trump voters rank Stein #2. Also a lot more people, myself included, likely would have ranked a third party #1, and Clinton/Trump #2) but interesting to think about. I'm excited at the prospect of ranked choice expanding. It really takes a lot of the fear out of voting for a 3rd party, if you know your 2nd choice can be a "safe" one.

If ranked choice had been available, I would have voted:

#1 Johnson
#2 Clinton
#3 Stein
#4 McMullin
#5 Trump

 

[Rallywagon]

I don't think what @Famine is proposing is the same thing as ranked choice. Ranked choice would probably have pushed Johnson and Green much higher in delegate counts, if coupled with Famine's proportional delegate assignment.

Fair enough. I suppose proportional is definitely more accurate. There is some rank to it. So many points based on so many votes, but yeah. That doesn't work how ranked voting works.