An Electoral College Proposal

[subgenius]

The whole purpose of the electoral college is to give the minority a voice and meaningful influence. By definition a true "democracy" suppresses the minority because it is a product of majority rules...a.k.a. the most votes wins.

Alright, take the example of a landslide victory: Franklin Roosevelt v. Alf Landon, 1936:



Look at the percentage of the popular vote that Landon received compared the amount of electoral votes he received. How is the minority protected in that situation?

Again, we are nation of States - I can't dumb it down anymore than that. Think about the argument that was being made to allow for "faithless electors"; that is a recognition of the same concept whereas the majority may not always be right and thus we should not solely rely on a majority rules mentality when it comes to a large and diverse populace.

[MeDotOrg]

Alright, take the example of a landslide victory: Franklin Roosevelt v. Alf Landon, 1936:



Look at the percentage of the popular vote that Landon received compared the amount of electoral votes he received. How is the minority protected in that situation?

Again, we are nation of States - I can't dumb it down anymore than that. Think about the argument that was being made to allow for "faithless electors"; that is a recognition of the same concept whereas the majority may not always be right and thus we should not solely rely on a majority rules mentality when it comes to a large and diverse populace.

Your argument was that the Electoral College helps prevent the tyranny of the majority. I gave a specific example where the exact opposite happened. You could still have a 'faithless elector' cast a vote faithlessly if the state law allowed it, so I don't understand your point about the power of a faithless elector.

We ARE a Nation of States, but not all states are created equal. With respect to the Electoral College, a state's electoral importance is defined by its population.

Let me give you another example: What if Biden won California by 1,000 votes? How is that electorally fair to Trump? It isn't just small states that are winner take all.

[canpakes]

By definition a true "democracy" suppresses the minority because it is a product of majority rules...a.k.a. the most votes wins.

That is false. A true democracy doesn't suppress "the minority," unless you define "minority" as the people who lose.

Put another way, this claim of ‘suppressing the minority’ reflects a simpleton’s calculus that there are only two distinct groups in the system.

[subgenius]

That is false. A true democracy doesn't suppress "the minority," unless you define "minority" as the people who lose.

Put another way, this claim of ‘suppressing the minority’ reflects a simpleton’s calculus that there are only two distinct groups in the system.

Nope.
By definition, the "most votes" is not the minority position in an election, no matter how many contenders.

[subgenius]

Your argument was that the Electoral College helps prevent the tyranny of the majority. I gave a specific example where the exact opposite happened. .

"helps", not completely eradicates.
You're trying to argue the exception and not the rule.

[Gunnar]

One proposal I heard today on MSNBC for changing the EC was that each congressional district within a state would get one elector assigned to vote for the Presidential candidate that the majority within that district voted for. The electors left over would be designated to vote for the candidate that the state wide majority voted for.

[canpakes]

Put another way, this claim of ‘suppressing the minority’ reflects a simpleton’s calculus that there are only two distinct groups in the system.

Nope.
By definition, the "most votes" is not the minority position in an election, no matter how many contenders.

Best not to attempt to limit candidates or groups as positions. But, you’ve just broken your own argument, considering how a coalition of minorities can work towards achieving an election victory against an actual majority.

[subgenius]

Best not to attempt to limit candidates or groups as positions. But, you’ve just broken your own argument, considering how a coalition of minorities can work towards achieving an election victory against an actual majority.

Though i have quoted you here, its still not too late for you to edit your post and take most of the idiocy out of your response.
I wonder if you see how the electoral college is a "coalition of minorities" or if that irony is lost in your deeply dug trench.

[canpakes]

Best not to attempt to limit candidates or groups as positions. But, you’ve just broken your own argument, considering how a coalition of minorities can work towards achieving an election victory against an actual majority.

Though i have quoted you here, its still not too late for you to edit your post and take most of the idiocy out of your response.
I wonder if you see how the electoral college is a "coalition of minorities" or if that irony is lost in your deeply dug trench.

Must’ve been a rough night for you, given that you aren’t even able to follow your own rambling babble about what constitutes a minority or a majority - and not an ‘electoral college’, as you are clumsily trying to distract back to.

Go back to sleep. : D

[Res Ipsa]

I don't favor changing the electoral college beyond getting rid of the electors. The framers set up a system intended to balance the deeply conflicting feelings we have about democracy. The divergence between the popular vote and electoral college are due to some long-term demographic trends that i don't believe will continue to be dominant. Over its history, the U.S. has had a steady migration from urban to rural areas of the country. And I don't think it's an accident that the largest cities in the U.S. tend to be liberal. A popular saying about rights goes something like: your right to swing your fist stops at my face. In sparsely populated areas, there is lots of room for fist-swinging. In cities, simply due to population density, it's hard to swing your fist without hitting someone's face. To function, cities are heavily depending on working infrastructure, mass transit, trash service, etc. They see the value in public goods and are willing to pay for them. And, in cities, people are exposed to lots and lots of folks with different opinions, religious beliefs ethnic backgrounds, etc. And, out of need if nothing else, we learn to get along. So, even as rural folks migrate to large cities, the cities change the political views of these migrants and their children.

But, as we become less and less industrialized and companies don't need to have employees in a single location, I think we are starting to see this trend reverse. Amazon has to pay its Seattle employees a ton of money because the cost of living is so high here. A number of large cities are experiencing housing shortages that have driven the cost of shelter to crazy levels. The coronavirus is showing lots of employers that people can work from home, so they don't need expensive downtown office space. And they can locate their workforce in parts of the country where they can pay them less.

The cost of living is starting to drive younger, more liberal Americans away from the large cities to the relatively redder parts of the country. I don't think this division into large blue cities and red rural areas is going to last. The smaller, red cities are going to grow and turn bluer as people migrate to them to escape the high cost of living. Our current sorting is a contingent phenomenon, and I don't see it continuing.

And I also feel it is a good thing to force the liberal folks to pay attention to the needs of rural citizens. Someone needs to help out the coal miners whose jobs are not coming back, regardless of government intervention. Someone needs to figure out the spike in the rate of drug use and suicides among white, male rural folks. Folks in small towns along the Gulf coast are going to need help with rising sea levels and the increasing intensity of precipitation, not to mention higher heat and humidity. Diluting the EC will mean many more forgotten people in the country.

I think there are important systemic changes we should be looking at. I think the filibuster's time has come and gone. It prevents us from taking action to address pressing problems. It prevents the need to compromise between the parties, with the votes near the center unable to get anything done by switching sides.

I also think that anything that would reduce the stranglehold of the two major parties on our politics would be a huge benefit. I think that rank-choice voting, which takes the "throwing a vote away" out of voting for a third-party, would be a great step. Likewise, simplifying the byzantine tangle of rules that are required to get on the ballots in different states should be simplified. Our present major parties have had a long time to try an fix things that are still wrong in the U.S., and I'd like to see others have a shot.

Changing the EC requires a constitutional amendment, which in our current environment is virtually impossible. But there are other things we can do that aren't as difficult, and I think they are worth a try. We do need to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. But, always frustrating the will of the majority is not a stable situation in the long term. We need to stop thinking in terms of one side winning or losing, and start thinking about the balancing act the framers saw as necessary.