EPTOn July 21 2018 15:54 RvB wrote:
That's just rigging the game in the democrats favour and hardly a solution to the underlying problem of the US electoral system.
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2018 06:16 Grumbels wrote:
There is some author who thinks California should divide itself into 6 states in order to game the senate. He says it is theoretically easier than changing the constitution. And he said that Washington and Puerto Rico should be given statehood. This would create way more states that vote blue. Similarly, the courts should be packed in order to dillute the power of conservative judges.
On July 21 2018 02:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
An amendment requires 2/3 of of states to ratify it. Nuking the EC would shift a lot of power away from small states, so it seems extremely unlikely they'd go for it. That's beyond a political party making it their platform anyways.
On July 21 2018 02:12 Plansix wrote:
I am aware of Democracy for Realists(a truly terrible title, IMO), though I have not read it. I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time.
Changing/removing the electoral college would require an entire political party to run on the platform of changing the electoral college. Amendments to the foundation of our government are the acts of entire generations, not something that we do because one bad election.
That being said, I think that a shakeup of the way political power in distributed in the US is in order, if only to remind the political parties and population that the systems of power are not fixed.
On July 21 2018 01:51 mikedebo wrote:
zlefin has a really good book linked in their sig that mostly debunks this argument and which I wish more people would read.
On July 21 2018 00:35 Plansix wrote:
Part of the problem is people searching for the perfect system of democracy to counteract the pitfalls of democracy, rather than accept that it has always been broken. There is no system that will prevent voters from shooting themselves in the foot except smarter, better engaged voters. And it is really hard to make smarter, bettering engaged voters.
On July 21 2018 00:32 kollin wrote:
Absolutely haha, the problem with America being the cradle of democracy is that the institutions it's established - including the right to shoot politicians in the face should it come to it - are really really entrenched.
On July 21 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:
I don’t disagree with any of these critiques, but what you are requesting would require a lot of work. Each of our states control their own voting system and how they put candidates on the ballot, so each would need to be separately lobbied to change their voting systems. Changing the current system would require a lifetime of work.
On July 21 2018 00:25 kollin wrote:
That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms.
On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem.
[quote]
States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem.
That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms.
I don’t disagree with any of these critiques, but what you are requesting would require a lot of work. Each of our states control their own voting system and how they put candidates on the ballot, so each would need to be separately lobbied to change their voting systems. Changing the current system would require a lifetime of work.
Absolutely haha, the problem with America being the cradle of democracy is that the institutions it's established - including the right to shoot politicians in the face should it come to it - are really really entrenched.
Part of the problem is people searching for the perfect system of democracy to counteract the pitfalls of democracy, rather than accept that it has always been broken. There is no system that will prevent voters from shooting themselves in the foot except smarter, better engaged voters. And it is really hard to make smarter, bettering engaged voters.
zlefin has a really good book linked in their sig that mostly debunks this argument and which I wish more people would read.
I am aware of Democracy for Realists(a truly terrible title, IMO), though I have not read it. I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time.
On July 21 2018 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I will say the combination of FPTP and the electoral college create an unholy gestalt of badness. Basically trivializes the votes of Republicans and Democrats in equal measure throughout heavy red and heavy blue states.
It's also weird how to me how post-2016 everyone seemed to take up arms about how we need (or don't need) the EC to give some advantage to rural communities when the college itself just favors small population states (which are somewhat predisposed to being rural, but that's a state connection not a rural community connection). States allocating EC votes proportionally would maintain this small population advantage, but it seems to never be on the table.
I will say the combination of FPTP and the electoral college create an unholy gestalt of badness. Basically trivializes the votes of Republicans and Democrats in equal measure throughout heavy red and heavy blue states.
It's also weird how to me how post-2016 everyone seemed to take up arms about how we need (or don't need) the EC to give some advantage to rural communities when the college itself just favors small population states (which are somewhat predisposed to being rural, but that's a state connection not a rural community connection). States allocating EC votes proportionally would maintain this small population advantage, but it seems to never be on the table.
Changing/removing the electoral college would require an entire political party to run on the platform of changing the electoral college. Amendments to the foundation of our government are the acts of entire generations, not something that we do because one bad election.
That being said, I think that a shakeup of the way political power in distributed in the US is in order, if only to remind the political parties and population that the systems of power are not fixed.
An amendment requires 2/3 of of states to ratify it. Nuking the EC would shift a lot of power away from small states, so it seems extremely unlikely they'd go for it. That's beyond a political party making it their platform anyways.
There is some author who thinks California should divide itself into 6 states in order to game the senate. He says it is theoretically easier than changing the constitution. And he said that Washington and Puerto Rico should be given statehood. This would create way more states that vote blue. Similarly, the courts should be packed in order to dillute the power of conservative judges.
That's just rigging the game in the democrats favour and hardly a solution to the underlying problem of the US electoral system.
I don’t see how giving the most populous state more senators is rigging the system and therefore useless. All these proposals can be defended based on simple democratic grounds, the reason they all happen to benefit Democrats is because the GOP’s electoral success is based on gaming the electoral college, gerrymandering, suppressing and depressing turnout etc.
