Destroying the Electoral College: The Anti-Federalist National Popular Vote Scheme

[Cow Poke]

Thats the important thing, too. Trump gets to be President, but without a majority of people supporting him I can't say he has a mandate.

He won. You really need to come to grips with that.

He didn't even get a plurality of American voters and considering how little of the youth vote he got he's going to be in a rough place four years from now.

You don't know that. He has at least THREE YEARS to do something to reach them before he even starts campaigning again -- assuming he's going to campaign again.

[Teallaura]

The electoral college is there precisely because the public are prone to making poor choices - which is why we don't vote for president directly. The founders wanted a barrier between direct democracy, giving the electors the true final say in who becomes president. In theory, the electoral college could vote for Clinton, and it would be perfectly constitutional as far as I know. Is that likely to happen? No. But it's allowed.

I wonder if conservatives defending the EC would be accepting of that.

After this last election, I'm starting to wonder if people can govern themselves in the west - call me a fascist.

It's highly questionable that it would be constitutional now.

The States changed the game when 27 voted to make 'faithless election' illegal. Since states have the right to control their electors at least in part, one of those electors changing votes would bring up the constitutional question. It is allowed, yes, and incredibly unlikely, yes - but in at least 27 states it might not be Constitutional.

Probably, had the College overturned the Obama election - at least in rhetoric. But it wouldn't have been constitutional - although arguably what the Founders actually had in mind. Under present law, I'd have had a problem with it - a BIG one.

Yes, we actually do it very well. This is the tougher part - not getting to have your way. Part of the actual beauty of the EC is that it works against the tyranny of the majority. Case in point, Obama shoved the ACA down America's throat when a large minority (at some points majority) did not want it. Now a new admin with the same polical advantages will have the opportunity (and if Trump isn't an idiot - 'mandate' ) to disassemble it. Thanks to the Dems who actually used the Nuclear Option, it's now very much on the table and will probably be instrumental in dissecting the ACA. The point being the majority isn't always right and it shouldn't always have its way. When it does, it tends to run roughshod over everybody else - but no majority lasts forever and turnabout happens eventually.

[Teallaura]

It looks like Gallup polls people on this after each presidential race is over. The article posted on their own site talking about this still cites the 2013 number. I imagine they will do the poll again this January and we'll see more partisan opposition than in 2013 where, interestingly, the range is so small. Only a 5 point spread and 1 point spread respectively.

Said article (here) is a good read. Gallup, even back in 48 when the first started asking, found that a majority (53%) wanted the EC replaced and that number is significantly higher now at 63%.

Like, I understand wanting to have the most up to date data, but hot damn isn't it kind of nuts how across all age ranges and party affiliations the highest amount of support for the EC is 32%?

Congressional support was a whooping 19% a few years ago.

[Teallaura]

So you concede the number of votes per electoral vote is off. We do need to change the number of senators per state. Large states should have more.

You do know that the Senate is SUPPOSED to have equal representation for all states, right? It was designed that way. The House is designed to represent by population - one balancing the other. That way, when large states decide that it's cheaper to enslave juvenile delinquents rather than jail them, smaller states, with fewer such problems and cooler heads can keep them from actually doing something that stupid. Or at least try.

Extreme example, of course, but the point is that the difference between urban and rural are pretty large and their interests are frequently not mutual - having pop only representation hurts rural areas. Having even only representation hurts urban areas - so having one house of each solves the problem well.

[Sea of red]

It's highly questionable that it would be constitutional now.

The States changed the game when 27 voted to make 'faithless election' illegal. Since states have the right to control their electors at least in part, one of those electors changing votes would bring up the constitutional question. It is allowed, yes, and incredibly unlikely, yes - but in at least 27 states it might not be Constitutional.

Probably, had the College overturned the Obama election - at least in rhetoric. But it wouldn't have been constitutional - although arguably what the Founders actually had in mind. Under present law, I'd have had a problem with it - a BIG one.

Yes, we actually do it very well. This is the tougher part - not getting to have your way. Part of the actual beauty of the EC is that it works against the tyranny of the majority. Case in point, Obama shoved the ACA down America's throat when a large minority (at some points majority) did not want it. Now a new admin with the same polical advantages will have the opportunity (and if Trump isn't an idiot - 'mandate' ) to disassemble it. Thanks to the Dems who actually used the Nuclear Option, it's now very much on the table and will probably be instrumental in dissecting the ACA. The point being the majority isn't always right and it shouldn't always have its way. When it does, it tends to run roughshod over everybody else - but no majority lasts forever and turnabout happens eventually.

I agree that 'majority rules' is not something the world should base it's societies on. None of us will agree on what the 'best life' or 'best life', so the smart thing to do is to allow people to make their own choices - as long as they don't effect others freedom. That's the real essence of freedom. It's why we have courts - the majority often wants a very unjust resolution.

What I don't understand about conservatives is why they want to define morality for everybody else and outlaw all things they find immoral. As you said yourself, the tide can and does turn eventually. Just like when conservatives tried so hard to mandate a ban on same-sex marriage and it completely back fired on them; the laws they tried to give same-sex couples ended up being written the other way around.

[Teallaura]

MM's argument rests solely on the relative population sizes of the states. It is independent of any other attribute. So as given it applies equally well to counties, since there is nothing in his argument that is affected in any way by the substitution of the word "county" for "state".

Counties may be very different from states, but those differences don't affect his argument in the slightest.

Um, yeah it does. Two very different types of power - strong state governments are mitigated by the Federal government - so direct election of governors isn't at all the same problem as the election of a president. While some Founders favored strong central Federal government none favored an unchecked central government. The Fed is the check on the states in this respect - the EC is the state check on the Fed. Hence counties are not a good comparison to states in this analogy - even if MM were arguing strictly from numbers which wasn't how I understood him. Arguing the parallel just makes both arguments into hash.

[Teallaura]

I agree that 'majority rules' is not something the world should base it's societies on. None of us will agree on what the 'best life' or 'best life', so the smart thing to do is to allow people to make their own choices - as long as they don't effect others freedom. That's the real essence of freedom. It's why we have courts - the majority often wants a very unjust resolution.

What I don't understand about conservatives is why they want to define morality for everybody else and outlaw all things they find immoral. As you said yourself, the tide can and does turn eventually. Just like when conservatives tried so hard to mandate a ban on same-sex marriage and it completely back fired on them; the laws they tried to give same-sex couples ended up being written the other way around.

Law, ethics and morality are all aspects of the same thing.

Law governs social behavior and carries with it the power to enforce. Ethics governs social interactions and can operate both by persuasion of the individual and persuasion of the law. Morals govern the individual and operate in all three spheres - they all interact constantly. The argument about morality is simply rhetoric - law governs behavior and in a democratic republic it does so at the will of the people - its SUPPOSED to be governed itself by the rule of law and by the morals of the people. Creating laws with no morals is the same thing as creating a deliberate tyranny - it has several historical parallels in the 20th Century and none were good for the governed.

The problem with your argument per se is that it's self defeating. The values you consider right that govern your behavior are your own morals - and unless you are schizophrenic, they also govern your ethical, legal and political values. You are asking why people don't abandon their core values - morals - and substitute your own in the name of freedom. That isn't freedom - it's tyranny. You just aren't used to thinking of your values as morals so you don't see the extreme hypocrisy in the argument.

The argument is a rehash of the Sixties/Seventies 'do your own thing' school of morality - which proved itself extremely inconsistent on its good days and downright totalitarian on its bad ones. Turned out they only supported doing your own thing as long as it was the same - or at least didn't conflict - with their own thing. Hilarity - and insanity - ensued.

If you truly believe that everyone has the right to believe as they wish, then you have your answer - they believe the greater good is served by certain restrictions in law that you don't agree with - they are just like you, believing and acting on their beliefs.

[Teallaura]

I know how it started. It makes no sense today.

It makes more sense today. Urban areas are a political threat to rural ones in ways the Founders only could barely begin to see.

[Teallaura]

Dear Mountain Man,

Knocking out Texas - a single state - would reduce Trump's votes from 306 to 306-38=268 votes, which is below the 270 threshold. It would not be necessary to "knock out a number of states" at all. It would only be necessary to knock out Texas.

Thus, since knocking out Texas would remove Trump's victory in the same way that knocking out California would remove Clinton's popular vote win, Trump's victory did hinge on dominating a single state. You are wrong.

In fact, since Clinton's votes in California constituted only 9.8% of her popular vote total, while Trump's 38 electoral college votes from Texas constituted 12.4% of his total of 306, it is fair to say that Trump was more dependent on Texas that Clinton was on California.

Your analysis of this election continues to be execrable. You would have been better served to remain silent and not demonstrate to all here that you are truly an ignorant boob.

Roy

Roy,

Texas wasn't even remotely in play. Looking at the actual results, a large number of states were - far larger than anyone really thought going in. The swing states grew in number - yes, had Trump lost a few key swing states he would have lost. But if he'd lost Texas which is pretty dang solidly red (as solid as politics gets, anyway) then he'd have picked up California and probably have the Eastern Seaboard - and been running on Clinton's agenda and she on his.

The US is doing some weird stuff which is indicative of a party system shift - maybe finally ending. States that shouldn't have been in play were. Maybe it is just this one cycle - but both parties got saddled with candidates neither party really wanted so it's more likely something is changing. That remains to be seen.

[Sea of red]

Law, ethics and morality are all aspects of the same thing.

Law governs social behavior and carries with it the power to enforce. Ethics governs social interactions and can operate both by persuasion of the individual and persuasion of the law. Morals govern the individual and operate in all three spheres - they all interact constantly. The argument about morality is simply rhetoric - law governs behavior and in a democratic republic it does so at the will of the people - its SUPPOSED to be governed itself by the rule of law and by the morals of the people. Creating laws with no morals is the same thing as creating a deliberate tyranny - it has several historical parallels in the 20th Century and none were good for the governed.

The problem with your argument per se is that it's self defeating. The values you consider right that govern your behavior are your own morals - and unless you are schizophrenic, they also govern your ethical, legal and political values. You are asking why people don't abandon their core values - morals - and substitute your own in the name of freedom. That isn't freedom - it's tyranny. You just aren't used to thinking of your values as morals so you don't see the extreme hypocrisy in the argument.

The argument is a rehash of the Sixties/Seventies 'do your own thing' school of morality - which proved itself extremely inconsistent on its good days and downright totalitarian on its bad ones. Turned out they only supported doing your own thing as long as it was the same - or at least didn't conflict - with their own thing. Hilarity - and insanity - ensued.

If you truly believe that everyone has the right to believe as they wish, then you have your answer - they believe the greater good is served by certain restrictions in law that you don't agree with - they are just like you, believing and acting on their beliefs.

I don't believe in any greater good anymore to be honest. I'm tired of this 'at our core we have a lot in common' stuff in our society. We all have completely different outlooks on life that can't be reconciled with each other, and it's stupid to let the one with the most fools believing in it be the default. You don't want my morality and I don't want yours - at all. I have no problem with you practicing your own morality along with people that share your beliefs, but when you try to enforce me into your game, you're just practicing a passive form of neo-fascism - even if the rest of the public agrees with it.

[Teallaura]

I don't believe in any greater good anymore to be honest. I'm tired of this 'at our core we have a lot in common' stuff in our society. We all have completely different outlooks on life that can't be reconciled with each other, and it's stupid to let the one with the most fools believing in it be the default. You don't want my morality and I don't want yours - at all. I have no problem with you practicing your own morality along with people that share your beliefs, but when you try to enforce me into your game, you're just practicing a passive form of neo-fascism - even if the rest of the public agrees with it.

That sword cuts BOTH ways - You are trying to enforce your morality on those who don't share your values - you just condemned yourself as a neo-fascist. Your argument is a moral one - that others should not enforce their morality through law. It's also a bad argument but by its nature, it argues from morality because it is a should statement (how things should be is a moral view at its core) - so yeah, you are trying to enforce your morality in the very act of trying to prevent others from doing the same exact thing.

The broad brush is hypocritical here - which obscures the actually valid points to your core argument. Not all morality should be enforced - I quite agree. The issue isn't not enforcing morality - that's not actually an option - but deciding what morality should be enforced and what should not. We probably agree on several: theft, murder, avarice and disagree on a lot more.

[Sea of red]

That sword cuts BOTH ways - You are trying to enforce your morality on those who don't share your values - you just condemned yourself as a neo-fascist. Your argument is a moral one - that others should not enforce their morality through law. It's also a bad argument but by its nature, it argues from morality because it is a should statement (how things should be is a moral view at its core) - so yeah, you are trying to enforce your morality in the very act of trying to prevent others from doing the same exact thing.

What a hot mess. It's not a moral argument at all - it's a political one. I don't know where you get the idea that the idea of 'how things should be' is synonymous with philosophical morality. I can believe the government should allow business to discriminate against people, while simultaneously holding the view that such a thing is morally wrong. Morality and politics are not logically connected at all.

The broad brush is hypocritical here - which obscures the actually valid points to your core argument. Not all morality should be enforced - I quite agree. The issue isn't not enforcing morality - that's not actually an option - but deciding what morality should be enforced and what should not. We probably agree on several: theft, murder, avarice and disagree on a lot more.

Liberty, consent, and property are interconnected. People raping, stealing, and murdering tend to break all three. This is not the same thing as morality.

[Teallaura]

What a hot mess. It's not a moral argument at all - it's a political one. I don't know where you get the idea that the idea of 'how things should be' is synonymous with philosophical morality. I can believe the government should allow business to discriminate against people, while simultaneously holding the view that such a thing is morally wrong. Morality and politics are not logically connected at all.

Liberty, consent, and property are interconnected. People raping, stealing, and murdering tend to break all three. This is not the same thing as morality.

If it's a political argument then it's really, really bad - politics is just deciding who gets to govern. Saying that a group shouldn't enforce their beliefs is nonsensical - of course they should - why else would they want power? Politics sans morality is very much might makes right - and a very, very dangerous animal.

Morality, ethics and law are rings of the circle we use to govern power. They are more than just that, of course, but it's pure foolishness to talk about what should or should not be in politics stripped of morality - because it takes the other two with it.

You do realize that believing political right and morally wrong can coexist is inconsistent as heck, right? Also probably not even true - unless you would do business with establishments that discriminated unfairly against minorities? If not, you are exercising political power over those businesses to enforce your morality. Political power isn't limited to legislation.

Liberty is YOUR value, which you are seeking to enforce. There is no philosophic or rational difference between enforcement of your moral values, ethical values, political values or social values using your own argument - your arbitrary dislike of whatever you deem moral values being enforced is just that, arbitrary. You're still trying to enforce your values - and your morality - on others.

[rogue06]

None.

Give or take a few million.

[Sea of red]

If it's a political argument then it's really, really bad - politics is just deciding who gets to govern. Saying that a group shouldn't enforce their beliefs is nonsensical - of course they should - why else would they want power? Politics sans morality is very much might makes right - and a very, very dangerous animal.

It all in the word you used... power. Power is something human thirst for - some more than others. Your morality and beliefs should be your problem, and something for others to have to deal with. How would you like it if Jews became the majority and outlawed unkosher foods? I think you'd be singing a very different song if such a thing came to America.

Morality, ethics and law are rings of the circle we use to govern power. They are more than just that, of course, but it's pure foolishness to talk about what should or should not be in politics stripped of morality - because it takes the other two with it.

It shouldn't be about power, Teal. It should be about making a world where people that disagree with each other and have different outlooks on the wold, peacefully coexisting with each other.

You do realize that believing political right and morally wrong can coexist is inconsistent as heck, right?

No, it's not.