Blaming government in America is blaming ourselves. We reelect politicians regularly who enact policy we dislike due to lobbying pressure from the companies.
The truth of the matter about our government is, in an age where information has never been easier to access, we have an incredibly ignorant population that elects based almost solely on tribalism.
EDIT- for example, in 2016, the same year incumbency reelection rates were a near perfect 98% for the House, the approval rating of Congress hit a low of 13%.
Majorities predominantly approve of the fine public servants who represent their own district. The problem is those scoundrels who represent other districts and push outrageous policies that would never fly in your own enlightened district.
Unless, of course, you're part of the minority party in your own district.
The original plan was that the house would represent the people, while the senate would represent the states. Today, they've largely switched roles. The seventeenth amendment (popular election of senators) ended any pretense of the senate representing the state governments. But gerrymandering means that to a considerable degree, your representative in the house is chosen by your state government.
Absolutely, gerrymandering is a huge issue. There's really not a need to shift district lines at all anymore. Just like there's no longer a need for the electoral college (an entity literally created because entire villages of men couldn't up and take a multi-day horse ride to vote).
Both should be abolished, as technology has advanced so far as to render both of them barriers to an earnest republic instead of facilitating an earnest republic.
Strongly disagree about the electoral college. At least if you are referring to a switch a straight national vote count. I’m fine with having the numbers automatically tallied without the need for an actual college of voters but we absolutely need to protect the ability of states to act as entities. That’s the reason why small states and large states are equally represented in the senate. Just going to a national popular vote would result in vast swaths of the country being ignored. It’s the surest way to doom the Union.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Problem is the Democratic Party. Oops I mean the socialist party. They are tearing this country apart with their BS. They have taken over the media, and they want to infiltrate every aspect of are lives. It has even reached gaming unfortunately with their politically correct do not PvP me shit, because I voted for Hillary.
Blaming government in America is blaming ourselves. We reelect politicians regularly who enact policy we dislike due to lobbying pressure from the companies.
The truth of the matter about our government is, in an age where information has never been easier to access, we have an incredibly ignorant population that elects based almost solely on tribalism.
EDIT- for example, in 2016, the same year incumbency reelection rates were a near perfect 98% for the House, the approval rating of Congress hit a low of 13%.
Majorities predominantly approve of the fine public servants who represent their own district. The problem is those scoundrels who represent other districts and push outrageous policies that would never fly in your own enlightened district.
Unless, of course, you're part of the minority party in your own district.
The original plan was that the house would represent the people, while the senate would represent the states. Today, they've largely switched roles. The seventeenth amendment (popular election of senators) ended any pretense of the senate representing the state governments. But gerrymandering means that to a considerable degree, your representative in the house is chosen by your state government.
Absolutely, gerrymandering is a huge issue. There's really not a need to shift district lines at all anymore. Just like there's no longer a need for the electoral college (an entity literally created because entire villages of men couldn't up and take a multi-day horse ride to vote).
Both should be abolished, as technology has advanced so far as to render both of them barriers to an earnest republic instead of facilitating an earnest republic.
Strongly disagree about the electoral college. At least if you are referring to a switch a straight national vote count. I’m fine with having the numbers automatically tallied without the need for an actual college of voters but we absolutely need to protect the ability of states to act as entities. That’s the reason why small states and large states are equally represented in the senate. Just going to a national popular vote would result in vast swaths of the country being ignored. It’s the surest way to doom the Union.
Consider: vast swathes of the country are still largely ignored in the Presidential race despite the continued use of the electoral college. The term "battleground states" was coined for a reason, and Ohio is damn near the only state you need to watch to know who will get elected President. Since 1944, the only presidential election that didn't go in favor of the candidate Ohio awarded their college votes to was once in 1960, when the state chose Nixon over Kennedy. No faithless elector going against their state's popular vote has ever changed the outcome of the election. Conversely, five presidents have been elected to office despite receiving less popular votes than their opponent. That's because the system by which states and candidates in an election are awarded "electoral votes" doesn't accurately reflect the opinion of the people, and attempting to reduce millions down to a few hundred "votes" is bound to leave portions of the electorate's votes floating uselessly in no-man's land. (EDIT: for anecdotal evidence of how bad it is to ignore the popular vote, the current President lost the popular vote by a larger margin than any of the other four Presidents in that category of "lost popular vote, won election." Just imagine how much differently the political landscape today might look had the electoral college been dissolved?)
It's just no longer needed. The electoral college has never prevented an ignorant electorate from shooting itself in the foot in the history of the country. It's also never ensured the electorate made a prudent choice.
The way some right wingers talk they do want business to be government. I think levels of government and regulation are responsible thing to do. Business will screw you over if allowed.
It will be interesting to see what would happen if a corporation controlled a settlement on say Mars. Do they enforce rule of law or is it a work campus? If you commit a crime do you get fired and exiled to Earth or imprisoned?
I think unions would be bad or worthless in a field that has such high turnover. Developers can try to form their own companies with core members.
Blaming government in America is blaming ourselves. We reelect politicians regularly who enact policy we dislike due to lobbying pressure from the companies.
The truth of the matter about our government is, in an age where information has never been easier to access, we have an incredibly ignorant population that elects based almost solely on tribalism.
EDIT- for example, in 2016, the same year incumbency reelection rates were a near perfect 98% for the House, the approval rating of Congress hit a low of 13%.
Majorities predominantly approve of the fine public servants who represent their own district. The problem is those scoundrels who represent other districts and push outrageous policies that would never fly in your own enlightened district.
Unless, of course, you're part of the minority party in your own district.
The original plan was that the house would represent the people, while the senate would represent the states. Today, they've largely switched roles. The seventeenth amendment (popular election of senators) ended any pretense of the senate representing the state governments. But gerrymandering means that to a considerable degree, your representative in the house is chosen by your state government.
Absolutely, gerrymandering is a huge issue. There's really not a need to shift district lines at all anymore. Just like there's no longer a need for the electoral college (an entity literally created because entire villages of men couldn't up and take a multi-day horse ride to vote).
Both should be abolished, as technology has advanced so far as to render both of them barriers to an earnest republic instead of facilitating an earnest republic.
Strongly disagree about the electoral college. At least if you are referring to a switch a straight national vote count. I’m fine with having the numbers automatically tallied without the need for an actual college of voters but we absolutely need to protect the ability of states to act as entities. That’s the reason why small states and large states are equally represented in the senate. Just going to a national popular vote would result in vast swaths of the country being ignored. It’s the surest way to doom the Union.
Consider: vast swathes of the country are still largely ignored in the Presidential race despite the continued use of the electoral college. The term "battleground states" was coined for a reason, and Ohio is damn near the only state you need to watch to know who will get elected President. Since 1944, the only presidential election that didn't go in favor of the candidate Ohio awarded their college votes to was once in 1960, when the state chose Nixon over Kennedy. No faithless elector going against their state's popular vote has ever changed the outcome of the election. Conversely, five presidents have been elected to office despite receiving less popular votes than their opponent. That's because the system by which states and candidates in an election are awarded "electoral votes" doesn't accurately reflect the opinion of the people, and attempting to reduce millions down to a few hundred "votes" is bound to leave portions of the electorate's votes floating uselessly in no-man's land. (EDIT: for anecdotal evidence of how bad it is to ignore the popular vote, the current President lost the popular vote by a larger margin than any of the other four Presidents in that category of "lost popular vote, won election." Just imagine how much differently the political landscape today might look had the electoral college been dissolved?)
It's just no longer needed. The electoral college has never prevented an ignorant electorate from shooting itself in the foot in the history of the country. It's also never ensured the electorate made a prudent choice.
"Conversely, five presidents have been elected to office despite receiving less popular votes than their opponent. That's because the system by which states and candidates in an election are awarded "electoral votes" doesn't accurately reflect the opinion of the people, and attempting to reduce millions down to a few hundred "votes" is bound to leave portions of the electorate's votes floating uselessly in no-man's land. "
It's not supposed to reflect the opinion of the people but rather the votes of the States towards who should lead them. We are a Union of States, something frequently forgotten or glossed over.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The way some right wingers talk they do want business to be government. I think levels of government and regulation are responsible thing to do. Business will screw you over if allowed.
It will be interesting to see what would happen if a corporation controlled a settlement on say Mars. Do they enforce rule of law or is it a work campus? If you commit a crime do you get fired and exiled to Earth or imprisoned?
I think unions would be bad or worthless in a field that has such high turnover. Developers can try to form their own companies with core members.
I would be surprised if a corp settlement could set up a business even on another planet without having some sort of government oversight. They would still have to pay taxes and probably have inspections, not to mention the opportunities presented to intelligence agencies. Unless it was like a 'Rollerball' scenario in which corporations have become governments.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"Conversely, five presidents have been elected to office despite receiving less popular votes than their opponent. That's because the system by which states and candidates in an election are awarded "electoral votes" doesn't accurately reflect the opinion of the people, and attempting to reduce millions down to a few hundred "votes" is bound to leave portions of the electorate's votes floating uselessly in no-man's land. "
It's not supposed to reflect the opinion of the people but rather the votes of the States towards who should lead them. We are a Union of States, something frequently forgotten or glossed over.
Nothing about being a Union of States means that the people's voice should be stricken from the federal elections, though.
Again, remember: goverment at the advent of our nation was centered much more locally out of necessity moreso than preference. The average American from one state would have zero idea what 99% of politicians or elected officials in another state say or do. They didn't have access to the kind of information we do today. To average southerners, "Yankees" weren't just the NE part of the U.S.; for all the interaction and things in common someone from Georgia would have with someone from, say, New York, they might as well have been separated by the same ocean that separates us from Britain. They were ignorant back then because of the necessities of grinding out that life and a lack of sufficient technology to enable the common man to inform himself adequately and consistently; ignorance today is much closer to a choice than a challenge to the common American.
The role of the federal government changed out of necessity. The Confederate States of America, among other issues, couldn't reach a consensus regarding wartime strategy that was dangerously paralyzing. In the end, the "President" of the Confederate states was largely ignored by his member states when Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia to Grant. Davis ordered the war continued using guerilla-style combat, but most of the states straight up ignored this and surrendered to the Union, instead. Centralized government is necessary in a global society of nations, and nowhere is that fact more salient than in wartime.
By the way, @Slapshot1188, and the other folks that have participated: thanks for being awesome and making this a really cool, calm discussion about something that the U.S. at large these days would likely come to shouts or blows about.
This community (including the staff members) is the reason I keep returning here.
The way some right wingers talk they do want business to be government. I think levels of government and regulation are responsible thing to do. Business will screw you over if allowed.
It will be interesting to see what would happen if a corporation controlled a settlement on say Mars. Do they enforce rule of law or is it a work campus? If you commit a crime do you get fired and exiled to Earth or imprisoned?
I think unions would be bad or worthless in a field that has such high turnover. Developers can try to form their own companies with core members.
I would be surprised if a corp settlement could set up a business even on another planet without having some sort of government oversight. They would still have to pay taxes and probably have inspections, not to mention the opportunities presented to intelligence agencies. Unless it was like a 'Rollerball' scenario in which corporations have become governments.
What control would a government have over a corporation on another planet? A settlement by a private corp would run by the private corp. The question becomes does the business run the settlement like a business or a government or a little of both.
"Conversely, five presidents have been elected to office despite receiving less popular votes than their opponent. That's because the system by which states and candidates in an election are awarded "electoral votes" doesn't accurately reflect the opinion of the people, and attempting to reduce millions down to a few hundred "votes" is bound to leave portions of the electorate's votes floating uselessly in no-man's land. "
It's not supposed to reflect the opinion of the people but rather the votes of the States towards who should lead them. We are a Union of States, something frequently forgotten or glossed over.
Nothing about being a Union of States means that the people's voice should be stricken from the federal elections, though.
Nobody is stricken. But again, it is the States that vote to choose the President. That is by design. The "people" are accounted for by the weight of those States based on population (mirroring the House of Representatives). It is up to each State to decide if they want a winner takes all or proportional allocation of their votes. If other States want to follow Nebraska and Maine and go to a proportional allocation that is within their purview.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The way some right wingers talk they do want business to be government. I think levels of government and regulation are responsible thing to do. Business will screw you over if allowed.
It will be interesting to see what would happen if a corporation controlled a settlement on say Mars. Do they enforce rule of law or is it a work campus? If you commit a crime do you get fired and exiled to Earth or imprisoned?
I think unions would be bad or worthless in a field that has such high turnover. Developers can try to form their own companies with core members.
I would be surprised if a corp settlement could set up a business even on another planet without having some sort of government oversight. They would still have to pay taxes and probably have inspections, not to mention the opportunities presented to intelligence agencies. Unless it was like a 'Rollerball' scenario in which corporations have become governments.
What control would a government have over a corporation on another planet? A settlement by a private corp would run by the private corp. The question becomes does the business run the settlement like a business or a government or a little of both.
Would the rules of this planet apply to another one? Who is going to enforce what that corporation does on another planet?
Obviously this guy:
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Blaming government in America is blaming ourselves. We reelect politicians regularly who enact policy we dislike due to lobbying pressure from the companies.
The truth of the matter about our government is, in an age where information has never been easier to access, we have an incredibly ignorant population that elects based almost solely on tribalism.
EDIT- for example, in 2016, the same year incumbency reelection rates were a near perfect 98% for the House, the approval rating of Congress hit a low of 13%.
Majorities predominantly approve of the fine public servants who represent their own district. The problem is those scoundrels who represent other districts and push outrageous policies that would never fly in your own enlightened district.
Unless, of course, you're part of the minority party in your own district.
The original plan was that the house would represent the people, while the senate would represent the states. Today, they've largely switched roles. The seventeenth amendment (popular election of senators) ended any pretense of the senate representing the state governments. But gerrymandering means that to a considerable degree, your representative in the house is chosen by your state government.
Absolutely, gerrymandering is a huge issue. There's really not a need to shift district lines at all anymore. Just like there's no longer a need for the electoral college (an entity literally created because entire villages of men couldn't up and take a multi-day horse ride to vote).
Both should be abolished, as technology has advanced so far as to render both of them barriers to an earnest republic instead of facilitating an earnest republic.
To the contrary, there is a need to change district lines as people move. When states gain or lose representatives in the house, they have to redraw the lines. Even apart from that, a district map that had about the same number of people in each district at one point in time could have three times as many in one district as another decades later. Much milder versions of that happen within a decade, but you have to redraw the lines periodically to stop it from getting out of hand.
That's not to say that gerrymandering is a good thing. But if you want to crack down on gerrymandering, the way to do it is with some neutral, easily enforceable rule that greatly restricts the ability of politicians to draw district boundaries however they please. Attempts at picking a neutral commission don't work, as that just means that the goal of partisans is to get onto that commission.
The approach I would favor is a constitutional amendment that says that all congressional districts must be the intersection of a convex shape with a state in the Mercator map projection. The particular map projection isn't important, but should be explicitly specified to prevent gerrymandering by choosing creative map projections. That would still allow a modest amount of gerrymandering, but it would pretty much force maps that you could look at and say, that doesn't look like someone was trying a creative gerrymander.
For example, in the case of a contiguous state with two congressional districts, this would require the boundary between the districts to be a single, straight line with the same number of people on both sides. With three districts, it would mean either two straight lines or three straight lines that meet at a single point where the three districts intersect. It's still possible to gerrymander that somewhat, but not possible to make districts that look like salamanders.
"Conversely, five presidents have been elected to office despite receiving less popular votes than their opponent. That's because the system by which states and candidates in an election are awarded "electoral votes" doesn't accurately reflect the opinion of the people, and attempting to reduce millions down to a few hundred "votes" is bound to leave portions of the electorate's votes floating uselessly in no-man's land. "
It's not supposed to reflect the opinion of the people but rather the votes of the States towards who should lead them. We are a Union of States, something frequently forgotten or glossed over.
Nothing about being a Union of States means that the people's voice should be stricken from the federal elections, though.
Nobody is stricken. But again, it is the States that vote to choose the President. That is by design. The "people" are accounted for by the weight of those States based on population (mirroring the House of Representatives). It is up to each State to decide if they want a winner takes all or proportional allocation of their votes. If other States want to follow Nebraska and Maine and go to a proportional allocation that is within their purview.
When people vote for President, they aren't actually casting a ballot directly for the candidate; they're electing the electors (out of the pool of electors appointed, in practice, by the Democratic and Republican parties) that will vote for the candidate they want.
The fact that the names on the ballot include the candidates' names, not merely a listing of the names of the electors, is telling.
Blaming government in America is blaming ourselves. We reelect politicians regularly who enact policy we dislike due to lobbying pressure from the companies.
The truth of the matter about our government is, in an age where information has never been easier to access, we have an incredibly ignorant population that elects based almost solely on tribalism.
EDIT- for example, in 2016, the same year incumbency reelection rates were a near perfect 98% for the House, the approval rating of Congress hit a low of 13%.
Majorities predominantly approve of the fine public servants who represent their own district. The problem is those scoundrels who represent other districts and push outrageous policies that would never fly in your own enlightened district.
Unless, of course, you're part of the minority party in your own district.
The original plan was that the house would represent the people, while the senate would represent the states. Today, they've largely switched roles. The seventeenth amendment (popular election of senators) ended any pretense of the senate representing the state governments. But gerrymandering means that to a considerable degree, your representative in the house is chosen by your state government.
Absolutely, gerrymandering is a huge issue. There's really not a need to shift district lines at all anymore. Just like there's no longer a need for the electoral college (an entity literally created because entire villages of men couldn't up and take a multi-day horse ride to vote).
Both should be abolished, as technology has advanced so far as to render both of them barriers to an earnest republic instead of facilitating an earnest republic.
To the contrary, there is a need to change district lines as people move. When states gain or lose representatives in the house, they have to redraw the lines. Even apart from that, a district map that had about the same number of people in each district at one point in time could have three times as many in one district as another decades later. Much milder versions of that happen within a decade, but you have to redraw the lines periodically to stop it from getting out of hand.
That's not to say that gerrymandering is a good thing. But if you want to crack down on gerrymandering, the way to do it is with some neutral, easily enforceable rule that greatly restricts the ability of politicians to draw district boundaries however they please. Attempts at picking a neutral commission don't work, as that just means that the goal of partisans is to get onto that commission.
The approach I would favor is a constitutional amendment that says that all congressional districts must be the intersection of a convex shape with a state in the Mercator map projection. The particular map projection isn't important, but should be explicitly specified to prevent gerrymandering by choosing creative map projections. That would still allow a modest amount of gerrymandering, but it would pretty much force maps that you could look at and say, that doesn't look like someone was trying a creative gerrymander.
For example, in the case of a contiguous state with two congressional districts, this would require the boundary between the districts to be a single, straight line with the same number of people on both sides. With three districts, it would mean either two straight lines or three straight lines that meet at a single point where the three districts intersect. It's still possible to gerrymander that somewhat, but not possible to make districts that look like salamanders.
I agree with a lot of what you say but the constitutional amendment should be at the State level. If residents of a State want to adopt that I would support it.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Blaming government in America is blaming ourselves. We reelect politicians regularly who enact policy we dislike due to lobbying pressure from the companies.
The truth of the matter about our government is, in an age where information has never been easier to access, we have an incredibly ignorant population that elects based almost solely on tribalism.
EDIT- for example, in 2016, the same year incumbency reelection rates were a near perfect 98% for the House, the approval rating of Congress hit a low of 13%.
Majorities predominantly approve of the fine public servants who represent their own district. The problem is those scoundrels who represent other districts and push outrageous policies that would never fly in your own enlightened district.
Unless, of course, you're part of the minority party in your own district.
The original plan was that the house would represent the people, while the senate would represent the states. Today, they've largely switched roles. The seventeenth amendment (popular election of senators) ended any pretense of the senate representing the state governments. But gerrymandering means that to a considerable degree, your representative in the house is chosen by your state government.
Absolutely, gerrymandering is a huge issue. There's really not a need to shift district lines at all anymore. Just like there's no longer a need for the electoral college (an entity literally created because entire villages of men couldn't up and take a multi-day horse ride to vote).
Both should be abolished, as technology has advanced so far as to render both of them barriers to an earnest republic instead of facilitating an earnest republic.
To the contrary, there is a need to change district lines as people move. When states gain or lose representatives in the house, they have to redraw the lines. Even apart from that, a district map that had about the same number of people in each district at one point in time could have three times as many in one district as another decades later. Much milder versions of that happen within a decade, but you have to redraw the lines periodically to stop it from getting out of hand.
That's not to say that gerrymandering is a good thing. But if you want to crack down on gerrymandering, the way to do it is with some neutral, easily enforceable rule that greatly restricts the ability of politicians to draw district boundaries however they please. Attempts at picking a neutral commission don't work, as that just means that the goal of partisans is to get onto that commission.
The approach I would favor is a constitutional amendment that says that all congressional districts must be the intersection of a convex shape with a state in the Mercator map projection. The particular map projection isn't important, but should be explicitly specified to prevent gerrymandering by choosing creative map projections. That would still allow a modest amount of gerrymandering, but it would pretty much force maps that you could look at and say, that doesn't look like someone was trying a creative gerrymander.
For example, in the case of a contiguous state with two congressional districts, this would require the boundary between the districts to be a single, straight line with the same number of people on both sides. With three districts, it would mean either two straight lines or three straight lines that meet at a single point where the three districts intersect. It's still possible to gerrymander that somewhat, but not possible to make districts that look like salamanders.
I haven't read the whole thing because I'm on the go, but you're right about the redistricting; repositioning based on population to ensure equal electorates in the district. I should've been clearer that the arbitrary redrawing of districts based on whims of those doing it, instead of merely trying to preserve the electorate sizes, is the issue.
"Conversely, five presidents have been elected to office despite receiving less popular votes than their opponent. That's because the system by which states and candidates in an election are awarded "electoral votes" doesn't accurately reflect the opinion of the people, and attempting to reduce millions down to a few hundred "votes" is bound to leave portions of the electorate's votes floating uselessly in no-man's land. "
It's not supposed to reflect the opinion of the people but rather the votes of the States towards who should lead them. We are a Union of States, something frequently forgotten or glossed over.
Nothing about being a Union of States means that the people's voice should be stricken from the federal elections, though.
Nobody is stricken. But again, it is the States that vote to choose the President. That is by design. The "people" are accounted for by the weight of those States based on population (mirroring the House of Representatives). It is up to each State to decide if they want a winner takes all or proportional allocation of their votes. If other States want to follow Nebraska and Maine and go to a proportional allocation that is within their purview.
When people vote for President, they aren't actually casting a ballot directly for the candidate; they're electing the electors (out of the pool of electors appointed, in practice, by the Democratic and Republican parties) that will vote for the candidate they want.
The fact that the names on the ballot include the candidates' names, not merely a listing of the names of the electors, is telling.
Of course. And that's why in my first response I said I do not object to doing away with the actual college of voters (they just add a layer of complexity that is not needed) but strongly object to radically altering the way we elect a President by having a national popular vote.
If a State wants to assign their votes based on a proportion of their popular vote that is fine. So far only 2 States have adopted such (Maine and Nebraska). If a State wants to stick with winner takes all, then that is also fine. Each State should get to decide how they cast their votes.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"Conversely, five presidents have been elected to office despite receiving less popular votes than their opponent. That's because the system by which states and candidates in an election are awarded "electoral votes" doesn't accurately reflect the opinion of the people, and attempting to reduce millions down to a few hundred "votes" is bound to leave portions of the electorate's votes floating uselessly in no-man's land. "
It's not supposed to reflect the opinion of the people but rather the votes of the States towards who should lead them. We are a Union of States, something frequently forgotten or glossed over.
Nothing about being a Union of States means that the people's voice should be stricken from the federal elections, though.
Nobody is stricken. But again, it is the States that vote to choose the President. That is by design. The "people" are accounted for by the weight of those States based on population (mirroring the House of Representatives). It is up to each State to decide if they want a winner takes all or proportional allocation of their votes. If other States want to follow Nebraska and Maine and go to a proportional allocation that is within their purview.
When people vote for President, they aren't actually casting a ballot directly for the candidate; they're electing the electors (out of the pool of electors appointed, in practice, by the Democratic and Republican parties) that will vote for the candidate they want.
The fact that the names on the ballot include the candidates' names, not merely a listing of the names of the electors, is telling.
Of course. And that's why in my first response I said I do not object to doing away with the actual college of voters (they just add a layer of complexity that is not needed) but strongly object to radically altering the way we elect a President by having a national popular vote.
If a State wants to assign their votes based on a proportion of their popular vote that is fine. So far only 2 States have adopted such (Maine and Nebraska). If a State wants to stick with winner takes all, then that is also fine. Each State should get to decide how they cast their votes.
And again, all that has the effect of doing is disenfranchising voters. A republic is still a republic when the electorate's will is accurately reflected in the choosing of their federal officials.
Nothing about accurately reflecting the popular vote will destroy the republic. On the contrary; the way it's set up now allows the parties to game the system in a way where they can effectively ignore many states (including their states' individual governments) wholesale. When winners take all, 4 million votes against you in a state where you know you'll get 10 million don't matter and, as a result, neither does that state in general.. If it weren't winner take all, politicians would still have to consider states they know they'll win, because how much they win by matters.
EDIT- in fact, this winner take all system is why the two party system is so prevalent. That would have George turning in his grave.
Consider: vast swathes of the country are still largely ignored in the Presidential race despite the continued use of the electoral college. The term "battleground states" was coined for a reason, and Ohio is damn near the only state you need to watch to know who will get elected President. Since 1944, the only presidential election that didn't go in favor of the candidate Ohio awarded their college votes to was once in 1960, when the state chose Nixon over Kennedy. No faithless elector going against their state's popular vote has ever changed the outcome of the election. Conversely, five presidents have been elected to office despite receiving less popular votes than their opponent. That's because the system by which states and candidates in an election are awarded "electoral votes" doesn't accurately reflect the opinion of the people, and attempting to reduce millions down to a few hundred "votes" is bound to leave portions of the electorate's votes floating uselessly in no-man's land. (EDIT: for anecdotal evidence of how bad it is to ignore the popular vote, the current President lost the popular vote by a larger margin than any of the other four Presidents in that category of "lost popular vote, won election." Just imagine how much differently the political landscape today might look had the electoral college been dissolved?)
It's just no longer needed. The electoral college has never prevented an ignorant electorate from shooting itself in the foot in the history of the country. It's also never ensured the electorate made a prudent choice.
If you mean the formality of people showing up to cast official electoral college ballots, then perhaps we could do away with that. But there are considerable advantages to the electoral college being a per-state vote system.
For one, it limits fraud. Suppose that a state is known to heavily favor one candidate, to the degree that the other party is barely present and can't really monitor the election well. Under the electoral college, they give their electoral votes to their favored candidate and that's that. If they concoct a million fraudulent votes, it doesn't matter--which discourages them from bothering with fraud.
That doesn't make fraud impossible in extremely tight elections. But it does mean that in order to swing an election that is decently close but not extremely so, you'd have to steal the election independently in several different states in which the other party has about half of the voters. That's much, much harder to do than concocting a bunch of fraudulent votes in areas that are strongholds for your party.
There's also the issue that popular vote totals across states simply aren't comparable. Consider primary elections, for example: some states have primaries and others have caucuses. If candidate A wins all of the primaries by a 2:1 margin and candidate B wins all of the caucuses by a 2:1 margin, they might win about as many delegates, but candidate A will have "won" the popular vote in a landslide.
There are plenty of systems that states could concoct to make their popular vote total weird. For example, if a state used instant runoff voting, how many votes does everyone get added into the popular vote? What if a state allowed you to cast 3 votes for your top candidate, 2 for your second place, and 1 for your third place? How does that add into a national popular vote total? Right now, we don't have states trying that sort of shenanigans to manipulate popular vote totals because it doesn't matter, but if it mattered, they sure would.
For example, in a week, there will probably be some partisans on the left complaining that it's unfair that Democrats won as few seats as they did in spite of winning the senate popular vote by a wide margin. What they won't mention is that it will be almost entirely due to a quirk of California's primary system that isn't done by parties. Rather, everyone is thrown into the same pot and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election. If they're both Democrats (as they are this year), then all votes in the general election are for a Democrat, even though had it been one of each party, the Republican might well have won 40% of the vote or so.
That sort of thing is a legitimate way to run an election. But it does mean that popular vote totals are basically meaningless. If popular vote becomes what elects the President, then expect a lot more such shenanigans. States might try creative shenanigans to keep some candidates off the ballot entirely, for example. In 1964, the Alabama Democratic party declined to put Lyndon Johnson on the ballot, and instead offered the option of unpledged Democratic electors.
If you want to abolish the electoral college, you'd have to go much further and have a nationalized election system in which state and local governments had no say in how elections are run. That's a much more radical change than the people who advocate the popular vote being the only thing that matters seem to realize. And it would also make the system far more open to manipulation, as whoever gets control of the agency that runs the entire election would have a huge advantage in ways that they don't right now because different officials are in charge of various state and local governments.
You mention that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's largely an artifact of the way the candidates ran their campaigns. As soon as the primaries ended, the Trump campaign completely ignored all states that weren't expected to be close. Hillary campaigned some and tried to run up her popular vote margin in safe states, while completely ignoring Michigan. They both won the total that they were trying for. Had it been popular vote that mattered from the beginning, they would have run very different campaigns and we have no idea how it would have played out.
Furthermore, your claim that it was the largest margin of losing the popular vote but winning the electoral vote is misleading on the grounds that it's only true in absolute vote totals, not percentages. In 1876, Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by about 3%, which is much larger than Hillary's percentage margin. He's also the only candidate ever to win an outright majority of the popular vote without becoming President. In 1824, John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote by more than 10% on the way to becoming President, though some states didn't have a popular vote then.
"Conversely, five presidents have been elected to office despite receiving less popular votes than their opponent. That's because the system by which states and candidates in an election are awarded "electoral votes" doesn't accurately reflect the opinion of the people, and attempting to reduce millions down to a few hundred "votes" is bound to leave portions of the electorate's votes floating uselessly in no-man's land. "
It's not supposed to reflect the opinion of the people but rather the votes of the States towards who should lead them. We are a Union of States, something frequently forgotten or glossed over.
Nothing about being a Union of States means that the people's voice should be stricken from the federal elections, though.
Nobody is stricken. But again, it is the States that vote to choose the President. That is by design. The "people" are accounted for by the weight of those States based on population (mirroring the House of Representatives). It is up to each State to decide if they want a winner takes all or proportional allocation of their votes. If other States want to follow Nebraska and Maine and go to a proportional allocation that is within their purview.
When people vote for President, they aren't actually casting a ballot directly for the candidate; they're electing the electors (out of the pool of electors appointed, in practice, by the Democratic and Republican parties) that will vote for the candidate they want.
The fact that the names on the ballot include the candidates' names, not merely a listing of the names of the electors, is telling.
Of course. And that's why in my first response I said I do not object to doing away with the actual college of voters (they just add a layer of complexity that is not needed) but strongly object to radically altering the way we elect a President by having a national popular vote.
If a State wants to assign their votes based on a proportion of their popular vote that is fine. So far only 2 States have adopted such (Maine and Nebraska). If a State wants to stick with winner takes all, then that is also fine. Each State should get to decide how they cast their votes.
And again, all that has the effect of doing is disenfranchising voters. A republic is still a republic when the electorate's will is accurately reflected in the choosing of their federal officials.
Nothing about accurately reflecting the popular vote will destroy the republic. On the contrary; the way it's set up now allows the parties to game the system in a way where they can effectively ignore many states (including their stayed governments) wholesale.
Totally disagree. Our country was SPECIFICALLY not set up to elect a President by direct popular vote. But again, totally within our Constitution... States can elect to change THEIR votes to proportional at any time.
Our country was not set up based on popular vote. There is a reason that we have a House and a Senate and the Senate has equal representation for each State regardless of it's population. If you follow your own reasoning then the Senate should be changed as well, because by the same reasoning... if I vote for party A's candidate along with 40% of my State and my State elects 2 of Party B's candidates to be Senators then the 40% of the people have been disenfranchised.
No, they haven't. Any more than when their State gives all their votes to a Presidental Candidate even though 40% of the population voted for the other guy.
My views on this have never changed and won't change based on who is in power today or tomorrow. People have to be very careful about kneejerk reactions (not saying your's is one) like when Harry Reid changed the Senate rules regarding votes for Judges. He just opened the door for McConnell to change it for the Supreme Court and now we shall forever be in candidate hell where there is no reason to pick a centrist and every President will pick the youngest idealogue they can find to stuff the Court for decades.
Bottom line... we need to be REALLY REALLY careful about making changes because they have wide-ranging consequences. But at the heart of my argument will always be the fact that the country was founded as a Union of States and each of those States should retain the rights to determine how their votes are cast.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The way some right wingers talk they do want business to be government. I think levels of government and regulation are responsible thing to do. Business will screw you over if allowed.
It will be interesting to see what would happen if a corporation controlled a settlement on say Mars. Do they enforce rule of law or is it a work campus? If you commit a crime do you get fired and exiled to Earth or imprisoned?
I think unions would be bad or worthless in a field that has such high turnover. Developers can try to form their own companies with core members.
I would be surprised if a corp settlement could set up a business even on another planet without having some sort of government oversight. They would still have to pay taxes and probably have inspections, not to mention the opportunities presented to intelligence agencies. Unless it was like a 'Rollerball' scenario in which corporations have become governments.
What control would a government have over a corporation on another planet? A settlement by a private corp would run by the private corp. The question becomes does the business run the settlement like a business or a government or a little of both.
Never mind another planet. How about other star systems? If we colonize a planet ten light years away and something happens there, it takes at least ten years for news of it to get back to Earth, and another ten years for a reply to make it back. By then, the issue will probably be long since over and the colonists will ignore whatever edict was sent from Earth.
Consider: vast swathes of the country are still largely ignored in the Presidential race despite the continued use of the electoral college. The term "battleground states" was coined for a reason, and Ohio is damn near the only state you need to watch to know who will get elected President. Since 1944, the only presidential election that didn't go in favor of the candidate Ohio awarded their college votes to was once in 1960, when the state chose Nixon over Kennedy. No faithless elector going against their state's popular vote has ever changed the outcome of the election. Conversely, five presidents have been elected to office despite receiving less popular votes than their opponent. That's because the system by which states and candidates in an election are awarded "electoral votes" doesn't accurately reflect the opinion of the people, and attempting to reduce millions down to a few hundred "votes" is bound to leave portions of the electorate's votes floating uselessly in no-man's land. (EDIT: for anecdotal evidence of how bad it is to ignore the popular vote, the current President lost the popular vote by a larger margin than any of the other four Presidents in that category of "lost popular vote, won election." Just imagine how much differently the political landscape today might look had the electoral college been dissolved?)
It's just no longer needed. The electoral college has never prevented an ignorant electorate from shooting itself in the foot in the history of the country. It's also never ensured the electorate made a prudent choice.
If you mean the formality of people showing up to cast official electoral college ballots, then perhaps we could do away with that. But there are considerable advantages to the electoral college being a per-state vote system.
For one, it limits fraud. Suppose that a state is known to heavily favor one candidate, to the degree that the other party is barely present and can't really monitor the election well. Under the electoral college, they give their electoral votes to their favored candidate and that's that. If they concoct a million fraudulent votes, it doesn't matter--which discourages them from bothering with fraud.
That doesn't make fraud impossible in extremely tight elections. But it does mean that in order to swing an election that is decently close but not extremely so, you'd have to steal the election independently in several different states in which the other party has about half of the voters. That's much, much harder to do than concocting a bunch of fraudulent votes in areas that are strongholds for your party.
There's also the issue that popular vote totals across states simply aren't comparable. Consider primary elections, for example: some states have primaries and others have caucuses. If candidate A wins all of the primaries by a 2:1 margin and candidate B wins all of the caucuses by a 2:1 margin, they might win about as many delegates, but candidate A will have "won" the popular vote in a landslide.
There are plenty of systems that states could concoct to make their popular vote total weird. For example, if a state used instant runoff voting, how many votes does everyone get added into the popular vote? What if a state allowed you to cast 3 votes for your top candidate, 2 for your second place, and 1 for your third place? How does that add into a national popular vote total? Right now, we don't have states trying that sort of shenanigans to manipulate popular vote totals because it doesn't matter, but if it mattered, they sure would.
For example, in a week, there will probably be some partisans on the left complaining that it's unfair that Democrats won as few seats as they did in spite of winning the senate popular vote by a wide margin. What they won't mention is that it will be almost entirely due to a quirk of California's primary system that isn't done by parties. Rather, everyone is thrown into the same pot and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election. If they're both Democrats (as they are this year), then all votes in the general election are for a Democrat, even though had it been one of each party, the Republican might well have won 40% of the vote or so.
That sort of thing is a legitimate way to run an election. But it does mean that popular vote totals are basically meaningless. If popular vote becomes what elects the President, then expect a lot more such shenanigans. States might try creative shenanigans to keep some candidates off the ballot entirely, for example. In 1964, the Alabama Democratic party declined to put Lyndon Johnson on the ballot, and instead offered the option of unpledged Democratic electors.
If you want to abolish the electoral college, you'd have to go much further and have a nationalized election system in which state and local governments had no say in how elections are run. That's a much more radical change than the people who advocate the popular vote being the only thing that matters seem to realize. And it would also make the system far more open to manipulation, as whoever gets control of the agency that runs the entire election would have a huge advantage in ways that they don't right now because different officials are in charge of various state and local governments.
You mention that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's largely an artifact of the way the candidates ran their campaigns. As soon as the primaries ended, the Trump campaign completely ignored all states that weren't expected to be close. Hillary campaigned some and tried to run up her popular vote margin in safe states, while completely ignoring Michigan. They both won the total that they were trying for. Had it been popular vote that mattered from the beginning, they would have run very different campaigns and we have no idea how it would have played out.
Furthermore, your claim that it was the largest margin of losing the popular vote but winning the electoral vote is misleading on the grounds that it's only true in absolute vote totals, not percentages. In 1876, Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by about 3%, which is much larger than Hillary's percentage margin. He's also the only candidate ever to win an outright majority of the popular vote without becoming President. In 1824, John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote by more than 10% on the way to becoming President, though some states didn't have a popular vote then.
That's a whole lot of fear-mongering about election manipulation to support the point.
The idea that popular vote selecting the President will result in widespread vote manipulation ignores how things like Congressional oversight committees work. It ignores the SCOTUS completely. In the end, no matter the framework, the parties and elected officials are merely playing in a yard defined by the SCOTUS. Something as important as a Presidential election fraud would immediately pique the highest court's interest. To really submit to the fear of vote manipulation, you'd have to believe that everyone in Congress and on the bench would be complicit as well as hundreds of state officials. That's not very realistic in my opinion, largely due to the SCOTUS.
EDIT- in fact, this winner take all system is why the two party system is so prevalent. That would have George turning in his grave.
I don't mean to pick on you here, as you're much less bad about this than some others, but I think that most of the founders of this country would be thrilled with the results. For the constitution that they wrote to still be in use more than two centuries later would have been considered a spectacular result, even if today the United States were still some podunk backwater limited to a chunk of the eastern coast of North America. The survival of the country was no sure thing, and it would be decades before there wasn't the assumption that Britain would come reclaim control of their rebel colonies in due time.
And for the country to not merely survive, but thrive? That the country they founded would eventually become the most powerful in the world? That a scarce republic in a world mostly governed by absolute monarchies, dictatorships, and other tyrannies would ultimately be emulated until there were many dozens of democracies all around the world? They would be ecstatic.
The founders of the United States weren't naive idealists who believed that they could build heaven on earth if only they used this or that system. They distrusted everyone and everything and were actively trying not to let any faction get too much power--including the general public. The house was to represent the people, to ensure that the government couldn't do much without the approval of the masses. But plenty of other mechanisms were in place to slam the breaks on a popular furor, from senators being appointed by states, to senators only being up every three elections, to judges having lifetime appointments, to the president being chosen by the electoral college. That a fleeting majority doesn't always get what it wants in the moment is by design.
EDIT- in fact, this winner take all system is why the two party system is so prevalent. That would have George turning in his grave.
I don't mean to pick on you here, as you're much less bad about this than some others, but I think that most of the founders of this country would be thrilled with the results. For the constitution that they wrote to still be in use more than two centuries later would have been considered a spectacular result, even if today the United States were still some podunk backwater limited to a chunk of the eastern coast of North America. The survival of the country was no sure thing, and it would be decades before there wasn't the assumption that Britain would come reclaim control of their rebel colonies in due time.
And for the country to not merely survive, but thrive? That the country they founded would eventually become the most powerful in the world? That a scarce republic in a world mostly governed by absolute monarchies, dictatorships, and other tyrannies would ultimately be emulated until there were many dozens of democracies all around the world? They would be ecstatic.
The founders of the United States weren't naive idealists who believed that they could build heaven on earth if only they used this or that system. They distrusted everyone and everything and were actively trying not to let any faction get too much power--including the general public. The house was to represent the people, to ensure that the government couldn't do much without the approval of the masses. But plenty of other mechanisms were in place to slam the breaks on a popular furor, from senators being appointed by states, to senators only being up every three elections, to judges having lifetime appointments, to the president being chosen by the electoral college. That a fleeting majority doesn't always get what it wants in the moment is by design.
Ahh, but that's the thing: electing a president doesn't result in a fleeting majority getting it's way. The majority cannot decide the issue at hand for the President in the moment. They cannot force their elected representatives to vote exactly how they demand at the time of the vote. Rarely does a candidate's platform truly mimic it's constituency's desires completely, because that majority generally doesn't agree on all issues completely. There is no chance a "fleeting majority" declares war on another country on our government's behalf, for example.
And George absolutely would be turning in his grave at the two party system, not the electoral process in general.
That's a whole lot of fear-mongering about election manipulation to support the point.
The idea that popular vote selecting the President will result in widespread vote manipulation ignores how things like Congressional oversight committees work. It ignores the SCOTUS completely. In the end, no matter the framework, the parties and elected officials are merely playing in a yard defined by the SCOTUS. Something as important as a Presidential election fraud would immediately pique the highest court's interest. To really submit to the fear of vote manipulation, you'd have to believe that everyone in Congress and on the bench would be complicit as well as hundreds of state officials. That's not very realistic in my opinion, largely due to the SCOTUS.
How plausible it is that fraud could change an election result depends tremendously on how close the election is. If without fraud, a candidate would have won by only a single vote, for fraud to change that election result is very plausible. If without fraud, one candidate would have won by a 20% margin, the only way that fraud can change that is if the incumbent party has complete control of the election apparatus and does a lot of things that look very suspicious to outside observers.
But some systems are more resilient against fraud than others. My argument is that the margin of victory it would take to make fraud implausible is smaller with the electoral college than it would be with the popular vote because fraud in most places would be irrelevant. Rather, there is only a relative handful of places that you have to look that fraud would have mattered if it had occurred.
Don't kid yourself that the Supreme Court will step in and settle everything to the satisfaction of everyone. The recent historical examples of major races with some fishy activity where it isn't clear who really won generally featured courts declining to intervene, not overturning results. See, for example, the 2008 Minnesota senate race or the 2004 Washington governor race. Or further back, consider the 1948 Texas Democratic senate primary or the 1876 presidential election itself.
Even when the Supreme Court does intervene, do you really think that Bush v. Gore made everyone happy? And that only mandated that the re-re-recounts had to stop and results had to be certified, and didn't overturn any ballot counts as being fraudulent.
Our country was not set up based on popular vote. There is a reason that we have a House and a Senate and the Senate has equal representation for each State regardless of it's population. If you follow your own reasoning then the Senate should be changed as well, because by the same reasoning... if I vote for party A's candidate along with 40% of my State and my State elects 2 of Party B's candidates to be Senators then the 40% of the people have been disenfranchised.
No, they haven't. Any more than when their State gives all their votes to a Presidental Candidate even though 40% of the population voted for the other guy.
SNIP
But at the heart of my argument will always be the fact that the country was founded as a Union of States and each of those States should retain the rights to determine how their votes are cast.
I just wanted to restate the above as I think it's important.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It's just no longer needed. The electoral college has never prevented an ignorant electorate from shooting itself in the foot in the history of the country. It's also never ensured the electorate made a prudent choice.
It will be interesting to see what would happen if a corporation controlled a settlement on say Mars. Do they enforce rule of law or is it a work campus? If you commit a crime do you get fired and exiled to Earth or imprisoned?
I think unions would be bad or worthless in a field that has such high turnover. Developers can try to form their own companies with core members.
It's not supposed to reflect the opinion of the people but rather the votes of the States towards who should lead them. We are a Union of States, something frequently forgotten or glossed over.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Again, remember: goverment at the advent of our nation was centered much more locally out of necessity moreso than preference. The average American from one state would have zero idea what 99% of politicians or elected officials in another state say or do. They didn't have access to the kind of information we do today. To average southerners, "Yankees" weren't just the NE part of the U.S.; for all the interaction and things in common someone from Georgia would have with someone from, say, New York, they might as well have been separated by the same ocean that separates us from Britain. They were ignorant back then because of the necessities of grinding out that life and a lack of sufficient technology to enable the common man to inform himself adequately and consistently; ignorance today is much closer to a choice than a challenge to the common American.
The role of the federal government changed out of necessity. The Confederate States of America, among other issues, couldn't reach a consensus regarding wartime strategy that was dangerously paralyzing. In the end, the "President" of the Confederate states was largely ignored by his member states when Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia to Grant. Davis ordered the war continued using guerilla-style combat, but most of the states straight up ignored this and surrendered to the Union, instead. Centralized government is necessary in a global society of nations, and nowhere is that fact more salient than in wartime.
This community (including the staff members) is the reason I keep returning here.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
That's not to say that gerrymandering is a good thing. But if you want to crack down on gerrymandering, the way to do it is with some neutral, easily enforceable rule that greatly restricts the ability of politicians to draw district boundaries however they please. Attempts at picking a neutral commission don't work, as that just means that the goal of partisans is to get onto that commission.
The approach I would favor is a constitutional amendment that says that all congressional districts must be the intersection of a convex shape with a state in the Mercator map projection. The particular map projection isn't important, but should be explicitly specified to prevent gerrymandering by choosing creative map projections. That would still allow a modest amount of gerrymandering, but it would pretty much force maps that you could look at and say, that doesn't look like someone was trying a creative gerrymander.
For example, in the case of a contiguous state with two congressional districts, this would require the boundary between the districts to be a single, straight line with the same number of people on both sides. With three districts, it would mean either two straight lines or three straight lines that meet at a single point where the three districts intersect. It's still possible to gerrymander that somewhat, but not possible to make districts that look like salamanders.
When people vote for President, they aren't actually casting a ballot directly for the candidate; they're electing the electors (out of the pool of electors appointed, in practice, by the Democratic and Republican parties) that will vote for the candidate they want.
The fact that the names on the ballot include the candidates' names, not merely a listing of the names of the electors, is telling.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
If a State wants to assign their votes based on a proportion of their popular vote that is fine. So far only 2 States have adopted such (Maine and Nebraska). If a State wants to stick with winner takes all, then that is also fine. Each State should get to decide how they cast their votes.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Nothing about accurately reflecting the popular vote will destroy the republic. On the contrary; the way it's set up now allows the parties to game the system in a way where they can effectively ignore many states (including their states' individual governments) wholesale. When winners take all, 4 million votes against you in a state where you know you'll get 10 million don't matter and, as a result, neither does that state in general.. If it weren't winner take all, politicians would still have to consider states they know they'll win, because how much they win by matters.
EDIT- in fact, this winner take all system is why the two party system is so prevalent. That would have George turning in his grave.
For one, it limits fraud. Suppose that a state is known to heavily favor one candidate, to the degree that the other party is barely present and can't really monitor the election well. Under the electoral college, they give their electoral votes to their favored candidate and that's that. If they concoct a million fraudulent votes, it doesn't matter--which discourages them from bothering with fraud.
That doesn't make fraud impossible in extremely tight elections. But it does mean that in order to swing an election that is decently close but not extremely so, you'd have to steal the election independently in several different states in which the other party has about half of the voters. That's much, much harder to do than concocting a bunch of fraudulent votes in areas that are strongholds for your party.
There's also the issue that popular vote totals across states simply aren't comparable. Consider primary elections, for example: some states have primaries and others have caucuses. If candidate A wins all of the primaries by a 2:1 margin and candidate B wins all of the caucuses by a 2:1 margin, they might win about as many delegates, but candidate A will have "won" the popular vote in a landslide.
There are plenty of systems that states could concoct to make their popular vote total weird. For example, if a state used instant runoff voting, how many votes does everyone get added into the popular vote? What if a state allowed you to cast 3 votes for your top candidate, 2 for your second place, and 1 for your third place? How does that add into a national popular vote total? Right now, we don't have states trying that sort of shenanigans to manipulate popular vote totals because it doesn't matter, but if it mattered, they sure would.
For example, in a week, there will probably be some partisans on the left complaining that it's unfair that Democrats won as few seats as they did in spite of winning the senate popular vote by a wide margin. What they won't mention is that it will be almost entirely due to a quirk of California's primary system that isn't done by parties. Rather, everyone is thrown into the same pot and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election. If they're both Democrats (as they are this year), then all votes in the general election are for a Democrat, even though had it been one of each party, the Republican might well have won 40% of the vote or so.
That sort of thing is a legitimate way to run an election. But it does mean that popular vote totals are basically meaningless. If popular vote becomes what elects the President, then expect a lot more such shenanigans. States might try creative shenanigans to keep some candidates off the ballot entirely, for example. In 1964, the Alabama Democratic party declined to put Lyndon Johnson on the ballot, and instead offered the option of unpledged Democratic electors.
If you want to abolish the electoral college, you'd have to go much further and have a nationalized election system in which state and local governments had no say in how elections are run. That's a much more radical change than the people who advocate the popular vote being the only thing that matters seem to realize. And it would also make the system far more open to manipulation, as whoever gets control of the agency that runs the entire election would have a huge advantage in ways that they don't right now because different officials are in charge of various state and local governments.
You mention that Trump lost the popular vote, but that's largely an artifact of the way the candidates ran their campaigns. As soon as the primaries ended, the Trump campaign completely ignored all states that weren't expected to be close. Hillary campaigned some and tried to run up her popular vote margin in safe states, while completely ignoring Michigan. They both won the total that they were trying for. Had it been popular vote that mattered from the beginning, they would have run very different campaigns and we have no idea how it would have played out.
Furthermore, your claim that it was the largest margin of losing the popular vote but winning the electoral vote is misleading on the grounds that it's only true in absolute vote totals, not percentages. In 1876, Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by about 3%, which is much larger than Hillary's percentage margin. He's also the only candidate ever to win an outright majority of the popular vote without becoming President. In 1824, John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote by more than 10% on the way to becoming President, though some states didn't have a popular vote then.
Our country was not set up based on popular vote. There is a reason that we have a House and a Senate and the Senate has equal representation for each State regardless of it's population. If you follow your own reasoning then the Senate should be changed as well, because by the same reasoning... if I vote for party A's candidate along with 40% of my State and my State elects 2 of Party B's candidates to be Senators then the 40% of the people have been disenfranchised.
No, they haven't. Any more than when their State gives all their votes to a Presidental Candidate even though 40% of the population voted for the other guy.
My views on this have never changed and won't change based on who is in power today or tomorrow. People have to be very careful about kneejerk reactions (not saying your's is one) like when Harry Reid changed the Senate rules regarding votes for Judges. He just opened the door for McConnell to change it for the Supreme Court and now we shall forever be in candidate hell where there is no reason to pick a centrist and every President will pick the youngest idealogue they can find to stuff the Court for decades.
Bottom line... we need to be REALLY REALLY careful about making changes because they have wide-ranging consequences. But at the heart of my argument will always be the fact that the country was founded as a Union of States and each of those States should retain the rights to determine how their votes are cast.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The idea that popular vote selecting the President will result in widespread vote manipulation ignores how things like Congressional oversight committees work. It ignores the SCOTUS completely. In the end, no matter the framework, the parties and elected officials are merely playing in a yard defined by the SCOTUS. Something as important as a Presidential election fraud would immediately pique the highest court's interest. To really submit to the fear of vote manipulation, you'd have to believe that everyone in Congress and on the bench would be complicit as well as hundreds of state officials. That's not very realistic in my opinion, largely due to the SCOTUS.
And for the country to not merely survive, but thrive? That the country they founded would eventually become the most powerful in the world? That a scarce republic in a world mostly governed by absolute monarchies, dictatorships, and other tyrannies would ultimately be emulated until there were many dozens of democracies all around the world? They would be ecstatic.
The founders of the United States weren't naive idealists who believed that they could build heaven on earth if only they used this or that system. They distrusted everyone and everything and were actively trying not to let any faction get too much power--including the general public. The house was to represent the people, to ensure that the government couldn't do much without the approval of the masses. But plenty of other mechanisms were in place to slam the breaks on a popular furor, from senators being appointed by states, to senators only being up every three elections, to judges having lifetime appointments, to the president being chosen by the electoral college. That a fleeting majority doesn't always get what it wants in the moment is by design.
And George absolutely would be turning in his grave at the two party system, not the electoral process in general.
But some systems are more resilient against fraud than others. My argument is that the margin of victory it would take to make fraud implausible is smaller with the electoral college than it would be with the popular vote because fraud in most places would be irrelevant. Rather, there is only a relative handful of places that you have to look that fraud would have mattered if it had occurred.
Don't kid yourself that the Supreme Court will step in and settle everything to the satisfaction of everyone. The recent historical examples of major races with some fishy activity where it isn't clear who really won generally featured courts declining to intervene, not overturning results. See, for example, the 2008 Minnesota senate race or the 2004 Washington governor race. Or further back, consider the 1948 Texas Democratic senate primary or the 1876 presidential election itself.
Even when the Supreme Court does intervene, do you really think that Bush v. Gore made everyone happy? And that only mandated that the re-re-recounts had to stop and results had to be certified, and didn't overturn any ballot counts as being fraudulent.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018