An Electoral College Proposal

[subgenius]

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.

Good thoughts Res, and nice to not have it steeped in party lines.
I believe the "popular vote pledge" end-around that some States are using to sidestep the amendment process is a whim and that double edge sword will eventually cut their proverbial nose off.
As for the filibuster, i have mixed feelings because I think, as a rule, a really slow moving federal government is the best government.
However, given your professional experience I wonder how you value the idea(s) of an antagonistic system for governing. Is the refiner's fire an outdated method for society?
...
On a related note, I had a brilliant history of Russia professor that often noted the lesson history teaches us about societies..."nothing ever changes until there is blood in the street ".

[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.

Good thoughts Res, and nice to not have it steeped in party lines.
I believe the "popular vote pledge" end-around that some States are using to sidestep the amendment process is a whim and that double edge sword will eventually cut their proverbial nose off.
As for the filibuster, i have mixed feelings because I think, as a rule, a really slow moving federal government is the best government.
However, given your professional experience I wonder how you value the idea(s) of an antagonistic system for governing. Is the refiner's fire an outdated method for society?
...
On a related note, I had a brilliant history of Russia professor that often noted the lesson history teaches us about societies..."nothing ever changes until there is blood in the street ".

Yeah, I don't put much stock in the popular vote compact or whatever it's called. The law of unintended consequences is always in play. And, as one of the 538 bloggers noted, the whole system of presidential campaigning is built around the EC. That democrats win the counts for nothing popular vote under the current system is not a guarantee of winning it if we threw out the EC.

I understand your point about slow moving government and I think it's legitimate. But there are times when the federal government needs to be able to act relatively nimbly, and the filibuster is, to me, too much of an impediment to those times. I think the checks and balances in the constitution are sufficient to act as a rudder that limits the speed of change.

Personally, I try to figure things out using what I think of as the particle accelerator method: take two ideas and smash them against each other as hard as possible and see what happens. You may have noticed that here. But I'm not convinced that's a good model for governance. It depends on the degree of antagonism. The courtroom is an adversarial process. But 99% of filed cases never get there. They are resolved through more conciliatory processes like mediation. For those cases that are tried, the best feature is that they produce a decision. It doesn't have to be the best decision. Often, it's not. With all the protections theoretically built into our criminal justice system, we put way too many people on death row. So it's about reaching an outcome that people will accept. But it's done within a pretty strict framework of rules. If a trial lawyer tried his case by personally attacking the judge or threatening the jury, he'd go right to jail for contempt. So, adversarial within a strict set of rules combined with strongly followed norms.

If our government were working that way, I'd be fine. Smash the ideas together in committee meetings and in the chambers of commerce. But within a framework that generates trust in the outcome. I don't think our current state of politics in America is anything like a refiner's fire. It's more like burning down the refinery. I think we were stronger as a country when Senators fought each other's ideas in the halls of Congress and went out for a drink together afterword. There was a recognition of a shared purpose -- wanting what was best for Americans while disagreeing with what that was.

Your board name always makes me think of the church of the Subgenius (which is where I think you got it from, if I remember correctly). Remember, when two guys are fighting, its the subgenius that steals both of their wallets. I think that you and I are the guys fighting, and the subgenus's are the rich dudes making bank off us fighting. It's frankly insane that people like you and me are talking about killing each other because of propaganda campaigns designed to make us fear and hate each other because it puts eyes on screens that make rich people richer. It's like LBJ said, ""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." He's talking about black and white, but we're doing it today with liberal and conservative.

Sorry for the rambling; the short answer is that I do believe in an adversarial system, but structured to accomplish core, common purposes. Instead, what we have now is a cage match without a cage, with each side being pushed to view the other as an existential threat. We can't even respond to a fricking virus without turning it into an existential political free for all.

I can understand perfectly why a Russian History professor would have that view of history. But we've seen all kinds of societal change over the years without violent revolution. And, quite frankly, revolutions appear to me to produce more Chairman Maos than they do George Washingtons.

[subgenius]

Yeah, I don't put much stock in the popular vote compact or whatever it's called. The law of unintended consequences is always in play. And, as one of the 538 bloggers noted, the whole system of presidential campaigning is built around the EC. That democrats win the counts for nothing popular vote under the current system is not a guarantee of winning it if we threw out the EC.

I understand your point about slow moving government and I think it's legitimate. But there are times when the federal government needs to be able to act relatively nimbly, and the filibuster is, to me, too much of an impediment to those times. I think the checks and balances in the constitution are sufficient to act as a rudder that limits the speed of change.

Perhaps, but it seems that executive orders and other such legislative loopholes are usurping/sidestepping the checks/balances at an alarming rate. Perhaps my objection is founded on the principle that the Fed should not be involved in most things. The current situation seems to reinforce the notion that the government is too big inasmuch as a federal election should not have this much drama and impact on so many people. This level of engagement really should be at the school board and city council level.

Personally, I try to figure things out using what I think of as the particle accelerator method: take two ideas and smash them against each other as hard as possible and see what happens. You may have noticed that here. But I'm not convinced that's a good model for governance. It depends on the degree of antagonism. The courtroom is an adversarial process. But 99% of filed cases never get there. They are resolved through more conciliatory processes like mediation. For those cases that are tried, the best feature is that they produce a decision. It doesn't have to be the best decision. Often, it's not. With all the protections theoretically built into our criminal justice system, we put way too many people on death row. So it's about reaching an outcome that people will accept. But it's done within a pretty strict framework of rules. If a trial lawyer tried his case by personally attacking the judge or threatening the jury, he'd go right to jail for contempt. So, adversarial within a strict set of rules combined with strongly followed norms.

Sensible - I agree with a controlled burn being more appropriate...most of the time. However the philosophy of "shipwrecked" (Ortega) might be necessary for even the most "civilized" of societies. The system might actually benefit, on occasion, from a trial lawyer openly challenging a sitting judge - even at the cost of contempt charge. This is the sort of stuff that is akin to my aforementioned "blood in the street".

If our government were working that way, I'd be fine. Smash the ideas together in committee meetings and in the chambers of commerce. But within a framework that generates trust in the outcome.

Sometimes, if not all times, Justice is Might....(the noun not the verb).

I don't think our current state of politics in America is anything like a refiner's fire. It's more like burning down the refinery.

Maybe the refinery is too old for rehabilitation and renovation?

I think we were stronger as a country when Senators fought each other's ideas in the halls of Congress and went out for a drink together afterword. There was a recognition of a shared purpose -- wanting what was best for Americans while disagreeing with what that was.

I agree, a romantic and perhaps nostalgic notion, but certainly a worthy goal. The essence of politics, to me, is that words are battleground but no one mourns the casualty of an ego. But again, sometimes Caesar needs a knife or two...or three...

Your board name always makes me think of the church of the Subgenius (which is where I think you got it from, if I remember correctly).

You are correct, and most seem to forget.

Remember, when two guys are fighting, its the subgenius that steals both of their wallets.

and there you have it.

I think that you and I are the guys fighting, and the subgenus's are the rich dudes making bank off us fighting.

Perhaps, but I do not believe that being greedy is tantamount to being clever....or being slack.

It's frankly insane that people like you and me are talking about killing each other because of propaganda campaigns designed to make us fear and hate each other because it puts eyes on screens that make rich people richer. It's like LBJ said, ""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." He's talking about black and white, but we're doing it today with liberal and conservative.

True, but the recognition of this alleged scheme concludes with only one remedy....pitchforks (see also blood in the streets).

Sorry for the rambling; the short answer is that I do believe in an adversarial system, but structured to accomplish core, common purposes. Instead, what we have now is a cage match without a cage, with each side being pushed to view the other as an existential threat. We can't even respond to a fricking virus without turning it into an existential political free for all.

So, absent the notion of blood in the street where justice is inevitably concluded by might...how does your adversarial system render a decision? if might is not the judge then who/what resolves the conflict here?

I can understand perfectly why a Russian History professor would have that view of history. But we've seen all kinds of societal change over the years without violent revolution. And, quite frankly, revolutions appear to me to produce more Chairman Maos than they do George Washingtons.

Justice is a blind sword with 2 edges for sure.

[Res Ipsa]

Most executive orders are well within the authority of the president. He heads the executive branch, and executive orders are how he exercises his authority over the executive. But I agree there are far too many executive orders that cross the line between executive powers and legislative powers. I don't know what the trend is. It's easy to think of examples from the Trump administration because they're recent. But I think it's fair to say that every president in my lifetime has pushed at that boundary.

Personally, I blame the Congress and the stranglehold that the two parties have on it. Congress has ceded more and more of its power to the executive because its members don't want to take responsibility for making hard decisions. I think the most dramatic example of that is the War Powers Act. Congress uses it to avoid responsibility for military action. The same is true with the delegation of emergency authority. Congress has allowed both Obama and Trump to run roughshod over the AUMF that permitted the war in Iraq. They don't want to take the heat for the hard decisions they are supposed to make, and hide behind the president.

Again, just picking on an example fresh in my mind and not playing the stupid political party blame game. Congress is supposed to be a check on the President. But McConnell declared early on that he would not bring any piece of legislation in front of the Senate until the President approved it. How in the world is that a check on the executive branch?

As an example of the party stranglehold on the Congress is the Hastert rule. (The Speaker of the house won't bring legislation to the floor unless the majority of the majority party supports it.) That rule has nothing to do with legislating for the good of America and everything to do with party control. If the house Republicans propose a bill that 40% of the democrats support, the Speaker should put the bill up and it should be debated and voted on. Same in the Senate. To keep themselves in power, the two political parties have made it nearly impossible for compromise to happen in legislation.

The framers weren't perfect. But they were dead right to be concerned about political parties. I'm optimistic enough to think we can do that without blood in the streets. A modest proposal to start: bring back earmarks. They consequence of banning earmarks is that there is no incentive for any congress critter to cross the aisle. If they do, the party punishes them by withholding election funding or funding an opponent. If it takes a little bit of logrolling to break that stranglehold, I think it's worth it.

More later. Got clients to attend to.

[Res Ipsa]

It’s certainly possible that our entire governmental apparatus is out of warranty and beyond repair. But I’m not persuaded that it is. Grabbing the pitchforks or blood in the streets should, in my opinion, be a very last resort. The problem with revolutions is that you never know who the winners and losers will be. I think there are lots of Americans, both far left and right, who think they know who would win in a revolution. I think they are full of crap. The results of a revolution depends on a million continent events.

So I ask myself the question: is there anything happening right now worth killing my neighbor for? Not dying for? Worth taking a machete and hacking my neighbor to death? And I just don’t see it. Which leads me to think what’s needed is a remodel, not a complete demo and rebuild. And my starting place would be anything that weakens or two political parties and makes room for meaningful participation by other parties. Create incentives for congresscritters to cross the aisle and vote for what they think is best for the country. Right now, that’s the best I’ve got.

And I also believe in the notion of more emphasis on local government.

[Meadowchik]

I like the safeguards provided by the individually certified state-by-state voting, but the representation is off. Land gets a vote in the USA, and it still does in your proposal. Also, the portions provided by a state's total of electors does not fit nicely with all possible proportions of its popular vote. We'll still end up with swings every year, but less predictably so, which is good in my opinion. But that still means representation gets rounded up or down.