Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That is not even my argument. How you continue to be stuck to the representative number defies everything I am able to reach.

The Electoral College only effects the Presidential election. The Electoral College only effects the Presidential election. The Electoral College only effects the Presidential election.

The removal of the electoral college does not change the number of representatives. The removal of the electoral college does not change the number of representatives. The removal of the electoral college does not change the number of representatives.

At all.

The weak states and the strong states both stop mattering in a popular vote. Only the votes of individuals matter in this instance, which is better for everyone.

Democrat in Wyoming, under EC: Wyoming always goes Republican, vote irrelevant.

Republican in Wyoming, under EC: Wyoming always goes Republican, vote functionally irrelevant.

Democrat in California, under EC: California always goes Democrat, vote functionally irrelevant.

Republican in California, under EC: California always goes Democrat, vote irrelevant.

Democrat or Republican in North Carolina, under EC: Swing state, all votes matter to ultimate outcome.


Democrat in Wyoming, no EC: Vote counts in overall total for candidate.

Republican in Wyoming, no EC: Vote counts in overall total for candidate.

Democrat in California, no EC: Vote counts in overall total for candidate.

Republican in California, no EC: Vote counts in overall total for candidate.

Democrat or Republican in North Carolina, no EC: Vote counts in overall total for candidate.


Every state but swing is ignored unless there's no EC. The EC is the cause of flyover country, not its solution.

The states do not matter in the Presidential election as there is only one President, but whole swaths of the country are safely ignored because 50% of the popular vote in a state equals 100% of its electoral capacity, and you think this is more likely to protect minority populations?

The irony is that, as a North Carolina resident, I am one of the few Americans who's Presidential vote actually matters. If you don't live in a swing state, your Presidential vote has a 0% effect on the actual outcome.

[wierd]

Let us assume you are correct, (you aren't, but let's pretend)

Why is it OK for state A, with 700k people, to have 4 reps, while state B, which has 900k+ has 4 reps as well? Does this not result in state Bs votes being "less valuable", the very thing you condemn?

Let's take it further, state A still gas 700k, but state B has 1400k, 2x population of A, but gets only 6 reps, not 8, due to min rep counts being applied.  Why does A get 50% greater power in govt?

The base problem is the min rep number. Without the min rep number, rep number magically is equal (within reason) to state pop, and the EC magically works to ensure the votes in CA have the same power as those in AK, due to the distributive property of mathematics.

The min rep number is what unbalances the EC. Nothing else.

It is disingenuous to say what causes the imbalance is OK, while disparaging the imbalance.

In your fantasy situation where local (state) politics magically just go away, and only raw votes count, you only serve to cement the tyrany of majority as the form of govt when selecting the head of the executive.

Eg, the NSA, and other groups become the private force of the major population centers. Not cool bro.

[Rolan7]

Let me put it this way.  What, exactly, would be the issue with NC splitting up into 10 extra states?  Each new state would still be of comparable population to the Midwest states (I really have no special hate against the Dakotas, they're just exceptional examples).  And about as large as certain NE states.  Yet we'd have exactly twice as many electoral votes, 30.  (Actually... maybe more?  That's complicated)

That is basically what the Midwest is.  To reverse the scenario, why should the Midwest not be formed into larger states which are large enough to avoid rounding error?

I get that North Dakota and South Dakota have different cultures.  But I grew up in North Carolina.  We have at least four VERY different zones:  Mountain, foothills, piedmont, and coast.  I care about ND/SD, I merely think that the mountains and piedmont of NC are also distinct... and are inhabited by far more voters.  So why does our national system assign so much importance to the difference between <2million Dakotans, but 10 million North Carolinians are lumped together?

I mean, it's frankly pretty disrespectful.  But maybe I'm wrong to keep bringing up my state...
California.  WOW.  80% of the west coast, over 12% of the country, discounted as one homogeneous group.

Not to mention Senators.  Because that's at least imbalance by design.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Why is it OK for state A, with 700k people, to have 4 reps, while state B, which has 900k+ has 4 reps as well? Does this not result in state Bs votes being "less valuable", the very thing you condemn?

The base problem is the min rep number. Without the min rep number, rep number magically is equal (within reason) to state pop, and the EC magically works to ensure the votes in CA have the same power as those in AK, due to the distributive property of mathematics.

The min rep number is what unbalances the EC. Nothing else.

It is disingenuous to say what causes the imbalance is OK, while disparaging the imbalance.

Wierd, I ask you this with the utmost sincerity and desire for honest conversation: What. The. Fuck. are you talking about?

The Electoral College doesn't do that. The Electoral College vote numbers are taken from the representative numbers, not the other way around. And the representatives have no effect on the Presidential election at all. AK reps, in a national vote context, will continue to be elected by less votes per person than CAs reps no matter what happens.


Without the EC states don't "go one way or another" for President, there is only the whole population.

[wierd]

Sigh

Why is one branch of govt, fundamentally different, in terms of representation, than another?

Answer that, then explain why the presidential election process should be different than state representation in the legislature.

Also, "there is only the whole population" IS my concern.

See again, historical precedent with blacks after being given full citizenship and voting power, against a white supermajority, without extra weighting. ( newsflash, it resulted in horror.)

When 3/4 of the country lives in urban settings, things essential to non urban people will never get funding, approval, or consideration.

Now, back to my point on the EC.

If we got rid of the min rep numbers (which are there to address the above problem), and we institute an arbitrary granularity on how many people per rep a state needs to have that rep, say every 500k people, we end up with each and every state being fairly represented solely on population, like you want, within a margin of error set by the granularity chosen.

The results of an EC based election vs a popular election would be the exact same, statistically.

The reason they differ in our system, is the number of min reps, pushing some states up.

I am tots down with killing winner take all. That really is bullshit.  EC is just abstraction.

[Rolan7]

Because the original 13 states were allies who demanded equal representation in the Senate, and proportional representation in the House.  So the populous states and the tiny states (Rhode Island) both received significant, though not equal, representation.

I'm arguing against absurd rounding error that wasn't in the original spec, and also saying the presidential vote (which has changed significantly before) shouldn't be bound to states.  It's completely arbitrary to bind it to states.

Also ND has 1 representative and 3 electoral college representatives, I don't expect anyone to explain that.  The minimums are just different.  *shrug*

[redwallzyl]

Sigh

Why is one branch of govt, fundamentally different, in terms of representation, than another?

Answer that, then explain why the presidential election process should be different than state representation in the legislature.

do you seriously not understand one of the founding ideas of the US government system? we have both state based and population based representation as a compromise between population and region based representation. this is US politics 101.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Because they're all different from one another?

The Supreme Court doesn't represent the people directly at all, just their Constitutional protection. The Representatives are based upon local populations, while the Senators are based upon the states.

The Executive, as a unitary position from all of America, should not have anything to do with representing the states to begin with, but also due to the mass disenfranchisement it causes. Taking representation from all of the people is the appropriate way to select an executive who effects all of those people.


Also, historically the EC was just a compromise for early government functionality over slavery, which is now a settled issue. Getting rid of it is clearly an appropriate modification in light of all the trouble it causes for being a mere pragmatic and archaic body. We did the same with the Senate's elections, to our benefit.

Also, "there is only the whole population" IS my concern.

See again, historical precedent with blacks after being given full citizenship and voting power, against a white supermajority, without extra weighting. ( newsflash, it resulted in horror.)

When 3/4 of the country lives in urban settings, things essential to non urban people will never get funding, approval, or consideration.

A. Nothing to do with the President, this is the role of Representatives.

B. Makes it far worse, see my points on flyover country being created by the EC.

Blacks voting for a pro-equality President are automatically erased if they live in a mostly white state, where as they are not if their votes count regardless of who their neighbors are.

[WealthyRadish]

There are two sources of disproportionality in the EC:

1) The "vote weighting" from tying the number of electoral votes to senate + congressional seats
2) Winner-take-all states that waste most the votes everywhere but narrowly won swing states

The first is only as extensive as it is because the number of congressional districts has not grown since 1910, being fixed by congressional statute. This can also cause extreme inequity when for instance, Montana was apportioned one seat with a 2010 population of 1,000,000, while Rhode Island also got one seat despite only having a population of 500,000. Other extreme fluctuations where voter power is due to rounding error (truly the only sound basis for government) would not be fixed by removing the one seat minimum.

The second issue is the greater source of wasted votes, which MSH has described correctly.

[wierd]

I am tots down with getting rid of winner take all, which is a real, demonstrable problem.

Giving a proper reallocation to voting dists is also just peachy.

Even together, this will not give 1:1 voting power between states if min reps are retained.

Going straight pop vote, not so much.

Remember kids, the president is really a representative of the US (as in, of the states), not the us citizenship. That is why STATES elect him.

[redwallzyl]

Remember kids, the president is really a representative of the US, not the us citizenship. That is why STATES elect him.

...no

[wierd]

Redwall:

Yes. The president serves as a head if state to represent the gestalt of the federation of states that is the US.

The selection based on popular vote is a fairly modern contrivance. The states agreed to select their international representative this way to be more inclusive of the public. It was not originally so.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Wierd, it seems like you're describing the way things worked a few hundred years ago, am I right?

[wierd]

The method the states use, does not change who is actually holding the reigns.

[Rolan7]

I am tots down with getting rid of winner take all, which is a real, demonstrable problem.

Oh, yeah.  More states assigning their electors proportionally would solve most of the problem, agreed.  Apparently Maine and Nebraska are the only ones bucking it so far.  And I think Maine is involved in that cool non-FPTP thing, too.

The rounding error thing is a pretty minor quibble, relatively.

Remember kids, the president is really a representative of the US (as in, of the states), not the us citizenship. That is why STATES elect him.

Eh... I mean, yeah, you're technically correct.
Fakedit:
Really, this is how it's set up in the Constitution.
Maybe it makes no sense anymore, but we'd have to do something to change it.