Print

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

[EnigmaticHat]

Back ontopic: How do countries that use the popular vote to elect their leader for government do it then to have it be fair?

Generally speaking, one of two things:
1.  They have their legislative body elect a prime minister, which is similar but not exactly the same thing as having a popularly elected head of state.

2.  They don't because "majority wins" is fair and as long as you have the legislative body be more powerful than the head of state (as it VERY MUCH is in the US), then the majority gets the majority of power while the minorities get significant minorities of power, as is appropriate.

More to the point, this isn't "tyranny of the democrats" vs "current seesaw tyranny".  No, the issue is "a sane political system" vs "tyranny of Iowa and Ohio."  Seriously, if we're going to increase the voting power of states, we should at least do it with purpose, rather than at random.

Look at it this way.  Almost 4 million Texans voted blue.  Because of Texas' winner take all laws, their votes had no effect on the election whatsoever.  On top of that, by choosing to live in Texas, they gave the state more electors.  Which means that if they had all moved to another state, that would have had a greater effect on the election than they did by voting!  Well, assuming they did it in the past and the House had time to adjust, but the point is.  Their votes didn't count and they almost literally voted for Trump just by choosing to live in a specific state.  But it gets worse.  If only a single Texan had voted, and that Texan voted red, all those votes would have still gone to Trump.  Which means that the red votes also essentially didn't matter.  No one is going to campaign for a winner take all state that doesn't swing (Texas wasn't 100% surefire in 2016 but we're going to ignore that because hell is apparently freezing).

Does that seem like a good system to you?  Its not just Texas and its not just red states, its literally every state except Nebraska and Maine.  Like if we want to favor the rural states, we can just do that.  We have the power.  The constitution can be amended  We can just say "the 25 lower population states get 1 extra vote for every 10 votes."  If this is a thing that will improve our society surely it would be better than just "90% of votes don't count unless there's an upset lol bye."  Its a deeper problem than just making one side win more.

[TheBiggerFish]

That is the real problem with the EC.

[Egan_BW]

If my politics-fu isn't rusty, one of those things involves party policy, and the other involves constitutional amendments. A little different.

[Egan_BW]

I wouldn't say that changing democratic policy is much easier than passing an amendment.

[EnigmaticHat]

Its certainly not going to happen in the next four years, Trump supporting abolishing the EC would be implicitly saying his own election wasn't legit.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The President doesn't have any say in constitutional amendments. If anything, him being very unpopular but still Prez would make it easier.

The national vote compact also doesn't go through the President's office.

[Pwnzerfaust]

Donald Trump on Twitter, in November 2012:

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

[Rolepgeek]

You're ignoring that these smaller populations have fuck all in power that urban centres do, as urban centres are already where most all power resides
Power is already consolidated amongst too few, you want is consolidated amongst even fewer. This is reckless, dangerous and there is no reason why rural populations should stand to obey such a system except with their physical subjugation, otherwise they have nothing. Urban centres decide all things academic, thus they control the future ideologies of the nation. Urban centres decide all things financial, thus they decide where all money goes in the nation. Urban centres are most of the economy itself. They decide the media, the popular culture that defines the nation for such heavy influence. They are the most interconnected, lines of communication smallest, elites most well-connected; giving them guaranteed victories in every election is gamebreaking more than the game is already broken

And you're ignoring that urban populations are currently the ones being disenfranchised, a great portion of the time, with various methods to make it more difficult to vote.

More relvantly, however; if urban centers control all academia, and academia is liberal, and that in and of itself automatically decides future ideologies, rather than merely having an influence, then Trump would never have been elected.

What you are saying amounts to 'There are a lot of them, therefore those people have votes which are worth less'. Literally you're saying they should have less of a say because we should not use flat population counts. And your reasoning for this is that those people have no effective wills of their own, and are simply controlled by the elites. And yet that becomes less and less true, even in the indirect sense, as time goes on and information becomes more readily accessible. Unless, of course, you believe the media conspiracy has become all-encompassing.

Presidential elections being decided by popular vote does not usher in a new reign of cyberpunk darkness. There will always be an arms race between parties to secure votes. Even were you right about what and how it would play out, rebel factions would still spawn within the democrats and split it into new parties, and each would end up aligned with the results of around half the country, because when you manage to split the urban vote, the rural vote matters, even if it's small. Society is an organism, or an ecosystem, not a finely-tuned machine, and though an ecosystem can certainly desertify, well...

You've been talking a lot about Empires falling lately, comparisons to Rome a fair amount though that was a while ago (to be fair you haven't said anything explicitly about Empires in at least a few weeks, I think, but still). Thing is, I really like the Eastern Roman Empire, sometimes known as the Byzantines. They're fucking cool, man kataphractoi are the shit ANYWAY. I've been reading about them, and the thing is, Roman Empire came very close to falling on several occasions. And it came back on each but the last, and even then, there's a fair chance it would have except the guy who could've brought it back got shanked by his own soldiers because he decided to be diplomatic with some barbarian tribes instead of kill them (you know, the thing that let Rome actually survive and prosper so long; buffer states and shit).

So...really don't think 'direct popular vote' instead of 'multi-tiered FPTP popular vote' for the executive office will spell the doom of society and rural folks as we know it.


Really though the solution is next new deal focusing on rural and depressed economic areas, with raised taxes on rich, closed tax loopholes, and maybe even trade barriers specifically on MNCs that decide to try and move overseas to avoid taxes (or just specific taxes so they still get hit with 'em). Maybe Trump will go down in history as having that become his thing, and get four more years by being successful.

Hell of a lot better than a civil war from him getting assassinated, Mike Pence taking office, and riots ensuing from everyone everywhere simultaneously.

[Antioch]

I find the argument that the EC protects the rural vote so weak because the assumption that the divide between rural and urban populations is something unique is so unfounded.

Why not split the male and female vote? Every election there is a great divide between the 2, why not protect the female vote?
Why not split along racial minority? What does the EC do to protect the votes of racial minorities?
Or a left handed versus right handed vote?

EVERY group has interests, the rural population isn't any different in that at all.



EC in its current form is just a REALLY shitty system. Having proportional representation for the electoral votes would already make it 80% less shit.

[Loud Whispers]

And you're ignoring that urban populations are currently the ones being disenfranchised, a great portion of the time, with various methods to make it more difficult to vote.

Source pls

More relvantly, however; if urban centers control all academia, and academia is liberal, and that in and of itself automatically decides future ideologies, rather than merely having an influence, then Trump would never have been elected.

God bless America
The last revolt is halal

What you are saying amounts to 'There are a lot of them, therefore those people have votes which are worth less'. Literally you're saying they should have less of a say because we should not use flat population counts.

That's not what I'm literally saying and people who use literally in such a way is why I support human extinction

And your reasoning for this is that those people have no effective wills of their own, and are simply controlled by the elites.

If people had no effective wills of their own, there would be no issue with all power being concentrated in few people. The reality is people have their own wills which they exert upon the world
Come to the UK where so much of the politics revolves around a fear of London. The epitome of scary Metropolitan dominance vs everyone fucking else. The regionals are scared of the cultural dominance of the capital because it's unstoppable, their accents and customs shaped by all London sets. You know what that one mug Marx said about ideology? Bourgeoisie set the culture, set the ideology for the rest of society. Guess where they all live? The city. Where is all the money made? The city. Thus they are all wealthier and far more capable of exerting influence as an individual upon the world. Trailer trash who've got fuck all, they can't donate shit to Bernie or whatever the hell these rich SWPLs can do, all they can do is vote. Seems like you want to stack the money and power in favour of the city and ensure their dominance forever, ensuring the middle class forever have control over the USA

And yet that becomes less and less true, even in the indirect sense, as time goes on and information becomes more readily accessible. Unless, of course, you believe the media conspiracy has become all-encompassing.

Are you on crack m8, people have recognized the value of media and controlling it since Napoleon, and have since found better and better ways to kill bad news. Slide it, shill it, astroturf useless shit, remove it from search indexes, remove it from aggregators; nothing conspiratorial about bias, it's in your face

Presidential elections being decided by popular vote does not usher in a new reign of cyberpunk darkness.

Fam we're already there
Except we're still not allowed to upload people's minds into roombas
And ffs I want camofashion to become affordable for people who aren't SWPLs. Future fash right here

There will always be an arms race between parties to secure votes.

And right now this is equivalent to asking the Right to give all of their weapons to the left in exchange for nothing. Nothing short of suicide

Even were you right about what and how it would play out, rebel factions would still spawn within the democrats and split it into new parties, and each would end up aligned with the results of around half the country, because when you manage to split the urban vote, the rural vote matters, even if it's small. Society is an organism, or an ecosystem, not a finely-tuned machine, and though an ecosystem can certainly desertify, well...

Cities makes leftists, country makes rightists
Thus is immortal law. The main opposition to Democrats being diet Democrats or the bloody greens would be a godsend to US left. In my local case for example it is a two horse race between the left wing socialists or the left wing liberal socialists. Much diversity, very split

You've been talking a lot about Empires falling lately, comparisons to Rome a fair amount though that was a while ago (to be fair you haven't said anything explicitly about Empires in at least a few weeks, I think, but still).

I'm overdue some epic saxon beats

Thing is, I really like the Eastern Roman Empire, sometimes known as the Byzantines. They're fucking cool, man kataphractoi are the shit ANYWAY. I've been reading about them, and the thing is, Roman Empire came very close to falling on several occasions. And it came back on each but the last, and even then, there's a fair chance it would have except the guy who could've brought it back got shanked by his own soldiers because he decided to be diplomatic with some barbarian tribes instead of kill them (you know, the thing that let Rome actually survive and prosper so long; buffer states and shit).

The most dangerous thing a Roman general could do on campaign: Win
Sometimes terminally ill Empires must be destroyed so that the ashes may grow beautiful things

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

All things impermanent
Civilizations no exception

So...really don't think 'direct popular vote' instead of 'multi-tiered FPTP popular vote' for the executive office will spell the doom of society and rural folks as we know it.

How about instead of picking the option that consolidates elite power pick the option that makes votes all equal. Oh wait nah I forgot, discriminating against Asians in Uni is because they can handle it, they got money, but discriminating against poor people is fine because rich people need more political power lmao
Just put a parliamentary system in place. Winner takes all fucks you guys over

Really though the solution is next new deal focusing on rural and depressed economic areas, with raised taxes on rich, closed tax loopholes, and maybe even trade barriers specifically on MNCs that decide to try and move overseas to avoid taxes (or just specific taxes so they still get hit with 'em). Maybe Trump will go down in history as having that become his thing, and get four more years by being successful.

All according to keikaku

Hell of a lot better than a civil war from him getting assassinated, Mike Pence taking office, and riots ensuing from everyone everywhere simultaneously.

y assassinate orange hair man
y riot to 50 Pence

[smjjames]

What's a SWPL?

[Loud Whispers]

What's a SWPL?

stuff white people like

[Sergarr]

Seems like you want to stack the money and power in favour of the city and ensure their dominance forever, ensuring the middle class forever have control over the USA

I don't see why that's supposed to be bad. Cities are where our civilization comes from. Most good things are already produced in cities, and in cities only. Technology, economy, culture... rural areas are really only good for food, and that's also something that's being worked upon. Why would anyone want to give them dominance?

[Loud Whispers]

I don't see why that's supposed to be bad. Cities are where our civilization comes from.

They're also where most cancer is from

Most good things are already produced in cities, and in cities only. Technology, economy, culture... rural areas are really only good for food, and that's also something that's being worked upon. Why would anyone want to give them dominance?

It is this thinking that is exactly why giving cities dominance is a shit idea. That and it makes the job of well-connected urbanites consolidating power so much easier

I also forgot to reply to this

It's a basis of our society. Without having people be taught to depend on each other in almost all things in life, including food production, there would be no division of labor, and without division of labor, there would be no progress above the level of hunterers-gatherers. That would be a very good reason for why people are indoctrinated into dependence on fragile institutions.

That may work for an authoritarian shithole but for a democracy, you need productive and moral citizenry who are not only self-sufficient, but actively uphold the fragile institutions and cultivate them - they are the pillar and bulwark of society. By reducing them to useless dependents, you create Swedes

[Sergarr]

I also forgot to reply to this

It's a basis of our society. Without having people be taught to depend on each other in almost all things in life, including food production, there would be no division of labor, and without division of labor, there would be no progress above the level of hunterers-gatherers. That would be a very good reason for why people are indoctrinated into dependence on fragile institutions.

That may work for an authoritarian shithole but for a democracy, you need productive and moral citizenry who are not only self-sufficient, but actively uphold the fragile institutions and cultivate them - they are the pillar and bulwark of society. By reducing them to useless dependents, you create Swedes

So what you're saying, is that for democracy to work, we need to return to feudalism and collectively all become peasants, since that's the last time people really were self-sufficient to any real extent.

That's impossible, by the way. We won't have "productive and moral self-sufficient" citizens comprising your society any longer. Really, we haven't had them since way before the birth of modern proto-democracies (USA, Britain, France, 17th-18th centuries), and they worked just fine, resulting in highly powerful, vibrant and world-dominant societies.

And really, what's so bad about people depending on each other? Do you seriously think that Sweden is the only possible result of that?

EDIT: Whoops, missed the first part:

I don't see why that's supposed to be bad. Cities are where our civilization comes from.

They're also where most cancer is from

...have you even heard of how despicable "rural culture" usually is in the world? I mean, it's hard to miss, what with said rurals currently migrating into your countries, but I guess you somehow managed it.

Most good things are already produced in cities, and in cities only. Technology, economy, culture... rural areas are really only good for food, and that's also something that's being worked upon. Why would anyone want to give them dominance?

It is this thinking that is exactly why giving cities dominance is a shit idea. That and it makes the job of well-connected urbanites consolidating power so much easier

You're being illogical. Giving power to the ones that produce power is a great idea! Also, what's bad about "consolidating power", do I need to remind you that we need large manufacturing chains in order to make all the nice things around you, like computers, and those are not really possible without significant power consolidation?