Ed Electoral College

WilliamSeger said:
Gee, didn't have to read very far:



What "kind of equality among participants" is represented in a system where the value of your presidential vote depends on where you live?
Click to expand...

That is the kind of equality. It depends on where you live. it isn't one to one, but it doesn't fall under monarchy.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I think in our Twitter and Facebook and Instagram news, and short attention span society, it might be far too easy to influence a popular vote election.
Click to expand...
Your premise is completely invalid given the results of the most recent election (and the results in 2000 for that matter). If it can't keep an evil narcissist who loses the popular vote out of office, then what the **** is the use of the electoral college when it comes to an "influenced" election?
 
WilliamSeger said:
So you have to trash both the definitions of "democracy" and "equality" to make your point?
Click to expand...

There is a reason the definition you provided says "kind of equality" and not "equality". Equality has historically been discussed on a continuum.
 
BobTheCoward said:
There is a reason the definition you provided says "kind of equality" and not "equality". Equality has historically been discussed on a continuum.
Click to expand...

Oh, so we're talking about the "kind of equality" that isn't equal, and the "kind of democracy" that isn't democratic? I guess you're "kind of right" then.
 
The key problem here is in trying to make a normative argument (it should be) by piggybacking on a false injection of normative elements into the premise (mathematically unfair) as a way to dodge the meat of the issue.

The circle looks like this:

System A is more democratic than B because system A has this mathematical property, a property which is more democratic. Why is that property more democratic? Because that's what I'm going to take democratic to mean. Why? Look at the math, the math shows it objectively.

It's not obvious why one system is more democratic than another, but even if it were, it's still not obvious that one is better than another on those grounds.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Oh, so we're talking about the "kind of equality" that isn't equal, and the "kind of democracy" that isn't democratic? I guess you're "kind of right" then.
Click to expand...

Fine. We shall drop it because it isn't relevant. Even your definition of democracy doesn't get us any closer to answering why it is or is not the only ideal.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Oh, so we're talking about the "kind of equality" that isn't equal, and the "kind of democracy" that isn't democratic? I guess you're "kind of right" then.
Click to expand...

The kind of equality which allows a senile old man to vote but makes a politically savvy teenager sit out. There are lines all over the place, none have undisputed moral authority.
 
marplots said:
The kind of equality which allows a senile old man to vote but makes a politically savvy teenager sit out. There are lines all over the place, none have undisputed moral authority.
Click to expand...
If you want to talk about allowing everyone of any age to vote, that's a subject for another thread. I will say that I have no problem whatsoever with removing the minimum age entirely, preferably in combination with stripping the states of their prerogative to remove the voting rights of convicted criminals.

In other words, duh, every citizen should have the right to vote in a democracy.
 
Babbylonian said:
Your premise is completely invalid given the results of the most recent election (and the results in 2000 for that matter). If it can't keep an evil narcissist who loses the popular vote out of office, then what the **** is the use of the electoral college when it comes to an "influenced" election?
Click to expand...

Would Trump have lost the popular vote in a two person popular vote election?

I don't think we can say that he would have.

Such an election would have been run much differently by both campaigns.

Same for the 2000 election. Instead of running for the electoral numbers, campaigns would run
for the population numbers.

There were also 8 or 9 million votes for candidates other than Clinton or Trump.

Your popular vote election might well have ended with the same results.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
Would Trump have lost the popular vote in a two person popular vote election?

I don't think we can say that he would have.

Such an election would have been run much differently by both campaigns.

Same for the 2000 election. Instead of running for the electoral numbers, campaigns would run
for the population numbers.

There were also 8 or 9 million votes for candidates other than Clinton or Trump.

Your popular vote election might well have ended with the same results.
Click to expand...
So, your premise is what? That there would be only 2 candidates per election if the electoral college was abolished? That doesn't follow and you're all over the place here.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is the kind of equality. It depends on where you live. it isn't one to one, but it doesn't fall under monarchy.
Click to expand...

You can try to give different meaning to accepted meaning e.g. war is peace, but it is only doublespeak.

The plain accepted term for democracy is that 1 voter == 1 vote. They may not *directly* elect people (e.g. indirect democracy vs direct one) but there is no system which is called democratic and have 1 voter > 1 vote and 1 voter != another voter as the US electoral college is.

Imagine a state election where 1 county each voter counted for 4 votes of another county. Do you think people would call that democracy ? Nope.
 
Resume said:
Me too. Why do you think he changed his mind about the electoral college? Do you think he's just another say anything hypocrite politician?
Click to expand...

Truthfully, Trump praised the electoral college as wise only after he had reaped its benefits. Though he would've rather had a popular vote contest, he campaigned for the electoral vote because that's the current system. Had the contest been for the popular vote, he said he would have campaigned with a different strategy.

He came across as liking both systems to better connect with everyone. Obviously that has failed as his position became fluid with politics....
Chris B.
 
marplots said:
The kind of equality which allows a senile old man to vote but makes a politically savvy teenager sit out. There are lines all over the place, none have undisputed moral authority.
Click to expand...

Those are question of *eligibility* to the voting right. That is a different matter and you are confusing the issues. At issues is, among those eligible to vote, each vote in a democratic election are equal in weight.

As such the electoral college as defined, cannot be a democratic institution, if only because not every voter has the same weight.

That does not make the US not-a-democracy, but at that level, it isn't one. It is one at the state level, where IIRC , 1 voter==1 vote.
 
marplots said:
The key problem here is in trying to make a normative argument (it should be) by piggybacking on a false injection of normative elements into the premise (mathematically unfair) as a way to dodge the meat of the issue.

The circle looks like this:
Click to expand...

MerryGoRound.gif



Say what? If you want to talk about the "meat of the issue" as you see it, go ahead, but the proposition under discussion here is simply that the President should be selected by the popular vote, one man one vote, by the normative of equal participation in decision making. Regardless of your sophistry, I'll continue to call that the most democratic system, mathematically, philosophically, and grammatically. The EC system is undemocratic not only because it violates that principle, but it also means that some votes don't even really count (the "wasted" votes above what it takes to win the state's electoral votes).
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Truthfully, Trump praised the electoral college as wise only after he had reaped its benefits. Though he would've rather had a popular vote contest, he campaigned for the electoral vote because that's the current system. Had the contest been for the popular vote, he said he would have campaigned with a different strategy.

He came across as liking both systems to better connect with everyone. Obviously that has failed as his position became fluid with politics....
Chris B.
Click to expand...

So just a politician playing the system then?
 
Resume said:
So just a politician playing the system then?
Click to expand...

Absolutely that statement was political and he was playing the Nation, not just the system. His supporters realize what he was trying to do but to them wishy washy political positions = fail.
Chris B.
 
phiwum said:
In terms of voter-representation (i.e., whether one voter's vote "counts" for as much as another), there's no subjectivity here. Lower population states are over-represented. We may wonder whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but the basic facts are clear.

Obviously, when the nation was founded, they decided that over-representation of low-population states was a good thing. Maybe they were right, maybe not, but it is silly to pretend that a value-neutral term like "over-represented" is a biased term.
Click to expand...

Try this: American citizens are over-represented in American Congressional elections.

Or this: British MPs are under-represented in votes of the Israeli Knesset.

I think you're wrong in your use of the term. I'll try to remember that you mean by it a value-neutral description of how the US system weights the votes from each state in the Union, even though I think it self-evidently is not a value-neutral term. I'm sure you'll be quick to remind me if I forget and dispute your point again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom