• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 25, 2017
12,581
I mean, once the electoral college has been established there are lots of reasons it's hard to get rid of it, starting with the obvious: three-quarters of the States would need to ratify the amendment, and none of the smaller states would be likely to do it. So I wouldn't recommend arguing from Chesterton's fence here. Self-interest is sufficient to explain why the EC persists.

I'm not arguing from Chesterton's fence or w/e, I am stating that yes originally it is rooted in protecting slavery but just not entirely, as evidenced by the choice to keep it when 3/5ths and slavery, even 14th due process. I'm not saying keep it, I am explaining the background there. Should we also change the senate because all states have equal power in the senate regardless of population? I mean obviously not, there are multiple reasons for things existing the way they are. That is all I am saying.
 

JayC3

bork bork
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
3,857
In my mind, I hadn't connected the electoral college with the three-fifths compromise, so I looked it up and found an opinion article that basically dismantles a bunch of arguments in favor of it. A lot of you have already mentioned the various reasons but it's a nice distillation that's easy to share with others.

Five myths about the electoral college


1. The framers created the electoral college to protect small states.

Remember what the country looked like in 1787: The important division was between states that relied on slavery and those that didn't, not between large and small states. A direct election for president did not sit well with most delegates from the slave states, which had large populations but far fewer eligible voters. They gravitated toward the electoral college as a compromise because it was based on population. The convention had agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of calculating each state's allotment of seats in Congress. For Virginia, which had the largest population among the original 13 states, that meant more clout in choosing the president.

The electoral college distorts the political process by providing a huge incentive to visit competitive states, especially large ones with hefty numbers of electoral votes...

The framers protected the interests of smaller states by creating the Senate, which gives each state two votes regardless of population. There is no need for additional protection. Do we really want a presidency responsive to parochial interests in a system already prone to gridlock? The framers didn't.
2. The electoral college ensures that the winner has broad support.

Any system of electing the president requires some version of broad support, but the electoral college does little to promote that goal. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore but won in the electoral college. His victory came largely from his support among white men. He did not win majorities among women, blacks, Latinos, urbanites, the young, the old or those with less-than-average income. In short, Bush claimed the White House with the backing of one dominant group, not with broad support.
3. The electoral college preserves stability in our political system by discouraging third parties.

The electoral college system gives a third-party candidate more opportunities to create mischief than a direct election does. Think about what could happen in a neck-and-neck contest: If a third-party nominee won enough states to prevent either major-party candidate from winning the 270 electoral votes needed for a majority, the House of Representatives would decide the outcome. Each state delegation would have one vote; Vermont and Wyoming would count the same as Texas and New York. That's hardly a recipe for stability.

In addition, under the electoral college, a third party can tip the balance in a closely contested state. In 2000, Ralph Nader siphoned votes away from Gore in Florida. Had Nader not run, Gore could have won the election.

Direct elections, especially those without a runoff, prevent such problems. Coming in third or fourth would gain a party no leverage in the selection of the president.
4. In direct elections, candidates would campaign only in large cities.

Under any system, candidates try to spend their time in places where they can reach the most voters. But in a direct election, with every vote counting equally, candidates would have an incentive to appeal to voters everywhere, not just those in swing states. Because the price of advertising is mainly a function of market size, it does not cost more to reach 10,000 voters in Wyoming than it does to reach 10,000 voters in New York or Los Angeles.
5. Electors must vote for the candidate who wins their state.

In theory, this is true. In practice, however, electors may vote for whomever they please, and on rare occasions, they do. In a tight election, such behavior might deny either candidate a majority of the electoral vote and throw the election into the House of Representatives.
And this was written in 2012. People have had valid complaints about the electoral college for a long time now.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
I'm not arguing from Chesterton's fence or w/e, I am stating that yes originally it is rooted in protecting slavery but just not entirely, as evidenced by the choice to keep it when 3/5ths and slavery, even 14th due process. I'm not saying keep it, I am explaining the background there. Should we also change the senate because all states have equal power in the senate regardless of population? I mean obviously not, there are multiple reasons for things existing the way they are. That is all I am saying.

Right, but your evidence is fallacious, as I explained. The primary reason the electoral college persists is that in order to get rid of it we would need permission from states that gain political power from keeping it. This does nothing to change the fact that it's rooted in slavery. If anything it underlines it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,581
Right, but your evidence is fallacious, as I explained. The primary reason the electoral college persists is that in order to get rid of it we would need permission from states that gain political power from keeping it. This does nothing to change the fact that it's rooted in slavery. If anything it underlines it.

My point here is that the EC persisted despite the 13th-15th amendments being passed being evidence that there were reasons to keep it around other than protecting slavery which is clearly no longer a reason after the 13th abolishes it. I don't understand what part of that is fallacious. I never said it wasn't rooted in slavery. I said the opposite. I agree it was rooted in slavery.

I think it's commonly agreed upon that the EC + 3/5ths together were made up to allow for more voting power in states that had non-voting slaves.

it is rooted in slavery
 

RDreamer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,106
My point here is that the EC persisted despite the 13th-15th amendments being passed being evidence that there were reasons to keep it around other than protecting slavery which is clearly no longer a reason after the 13th abolishes it. I don't understand what part of that is fallacious. I never said it wasn't rooted in slavery. I said the opposite. I agree it was rooted in slavery.

But a similar racist function of the EC still existed after slavery stopped existing. After abolition, former slave holding states got all the power of their black citizens in the electoral college but could erect barriers like poll taxes and straight up intimidation to keep them from actually voting and there was no disincentive to that. Just because slavery ended doesn't mean states and people in the US stopped being racist and it also doesn't mean every institution or policy that was rooted in slavery went away. These institutions largely stuck around and were used in other ways to similar ends.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,581
But a similar racist function of the EC still existed after slavery stopped existing. After abolition, former slave holding states got all the power of their black citizens in the electoral college but could erect barriers like poll taxes and straight up intimidation to keep them from actually voting and there was no disincentive to that. Just because slavery ended doesn't mean states and people in the US stopped being racist and it also doesn't mean every institution or policy that was rooted in slavery went away. These institutions largely stuck around and were used in other ways to similar ends.

Perhaps you're right, but it isn't protecting slavery because slavery is abolished. Is it protecting racism at that point? I'd say that is a different discussion at that point. I don't know the answer there.
 

Box of Kittens

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,018
And this was written in 2012. People have had valid complaints about the electoral college for a long time now.

Then Senator Birch Bayh was leading an effort to get rid of it back in the 60s, and he was far from the first to propose replacing the EC with a popular vote. Doesn't stop people from claiming that the only reason Democrats are for reform is because they're "sore losers."
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
My point here is that the EC persisted despite the 13th-15th amendments being passed being evidence that there were reasons to keep it around other than protecting slavery which is clearly no longer a reason after the 13th abolishes it. I don't understand what part of that is fallacious. I never said it wasn't rooted in slavery. I said the opposite. I agree it was rooted in slavery.

Your argument is fallacious because the reason it persists is inertia. If your only argument is that inertia exists, then sure, that is true and also trivially obvious.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Then Senator Birch Bayh was leading an effort to get rid of it back in the 60s, and he was far from the first to propose replacing the EC with a popular vote. Doesn't stop people from claiming that the only reason Democrats are for reform is because they're "sore losers."
The best thing that could happen would be for a Democrat to win by Electoral College while losing the popular vote, and I don't foresee that happening any time soon. If it did though say, last year, you'd see Republican states everywhere jumping all on board for a popular vote.

I don't agree with keeping things around just because they're tactically advantageous to us - the filibuster for example.
 

JayC3

bork bork
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
3,857
Then Senator Birch Bayh was leading an effort to get rid of it back in the 60s, and he was far from the first to propose replacing the EC with a popular vote. Doesn't stop people from claiming that the only reason Democrats are for reform is because they're "sore losers."
I think the fact that the popular vote winner has lost the electoral college twice in the last five elections means that Democrats need to talk about it all the time, make it part of the party platform. Then, over time, as people get used to the idea, it'll be easier for it to actually happen.

And absolutely, kill the fillibuster. It's tactically advantageous now, but throughout history, it's stopped too much progressive legislation from passing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,078
I mean don't get me wrong I favor the constitutional amendment you all want (I think), but shouldn't the primary focus be on that shitty Reapportionment Act of 1929? That's arguably the bigger problem.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,581
Your argument is fallacious because the reason it persists is inertia. If your only argument is that inertia exists, then sure, that is true and also trivially obvious.

I don't understand where you're getting this from. I am not arguing anything on the basis of inertia. I don't get your intent on insisting what you are, and now you're saying my point in trivial and obvious? I never felt like my point was a big deal to begin with, but please belittle me - feels good man.

edit:
I think I understand what you're saying. Your message which is obviously clear to you is not obvious to a separate reader and I mixed up what you were saying. I was frankly confused. Argument from intertia is a logical fallacy which I thought you were saying my argument was. Very confusing verbiage, but I understand now.

You're saying the reason the EC was not changed is because of intertia. Okay, that doesn't make my argument fallacious at all. I am saying it is evidence that there were reasons to actually keep it around aside from intertia. So no, I am not only arguing that inertia exists. That is what you are arguing. I am saying it is evidence that at the time they chose not to change the electoral college because they had reasons other than slavery. I am not saying anything specific here and while inertia as you put it might be a reason that is not what I am saying.
 
Last edited:

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
Gillary distancing from Billary seems to be having mixed reaction.
Although, if I were to hazard a guess, I imagine it's more people who don't like Hillary that find Gillary reprehensible.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
I don't understand where you're getting this from. I am not arguing anything on the basis of inertia. I don't get your intent on insisting what you are, and now you're saying my point in trivial and obvious? I never felt like my point was a big deal to begin with, but please belittle me - feels good man.

edit:
I think I understand what you're saying. Your message which is obviously clear to you is not obvious to a separate reader and I mixed up what you were saying. I was frankly confused. Argument from intertia is a logical fallacy which I thought you were saying my argument was. Very confusing verbiage, but I understand now.

You're saying the reason the EC was not changed is because of intertia. Okay, that doesn't make my argument fallacious at all. I am saying it is evidence that there were reasons to actually keep it around aside from intertia. So no, I am not only arguing that inertia exists. That is what you are arguing. I am saying it is evidence that at the time they chose not to change the electoral college because they had reasons other than slavery. I am not saying anything specific here and while inertia as you put it might be a reason that is not what I am saying.

Sorry for the confusion; however, I still disagree.

The reason they didn't change the electoral college at the time was presumably simply because they didn't have the votes. This is, of course, because a state which will lose power due to the loss of the electoral college will simply never ratify the amendment, even though they may be willing to ratify an amendment that abolishes slavery.

But that is what I mean by inertia — a constitutional system which gives at least one-quarter of the states plus one extra political power will survive forever simply because the political system prevents the other three-quarters minus one from overturning it. That does not necessarily imply that there is a good reason, or any particular reason, for that system to exist. It just means that it's very difficult to remove such a system.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,581
Sorry for the confusion; however, I still disagree.

The reason they didn't change the electoral college at the time was presumably simply because they didn't have the votes. This is, of course, because a state which will lose power due to the loss of the electoral college will simply never ratify the amendment, even though they may be willing to ratify an amendment that abolishes slavery.

But that is what I mean by inertia — a constitutional system which gives at least one-quarter of the states plus one extra political power will survive forever simply because the political system prevents the other three-quarters minus one from overturning it. That does not necessarily imply that there is a good reason, or any particular reason, for that system to exist. It just means that it's very difficult to remove such a system.

I don't know if what you're saying is factually true or not regarding the reasons they kept it. I'm not particularly well versed in the time period. I am far from an expert in history. I am sure the south, and perhaps other states wanted it to stay the same because of the power it affords them in comparison to a direct election system. Inertia, as you put it, is definitely on the side of things staying the same when it comes to constitutional amendments. I am sure that was a big part of why it didn't change. But I think that is compatible with what I am saying, that people thought there were reasons to keep it around, inertia or whatever good or bad reasons, separate from protecting slavery. I don't think we're really in disagreement here.

I would note however, that at the time they did pass 3 constitutional amendments in a short period of time and the EC was not abolished at that time. Could be because of inertia and I am certain that played a part because people love to keep things as they are
 

TheHunter

Bold Bur3n Wrangler
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
25,774
So this Weinstien news is very disgusting.

100's of people...I mean dear god. We need to clean this behavior up ASAP.
 

Amibguous Cad

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,033
We need to focus our energies on stuff that will really tilt the demographics of the electorate back towards the true state of the American people: amnesty, felon enfranchisement, and automatic voter registration.

Also, random question: could the guarantee clause of the constitution, ("The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government") form a basis for courts to intervene more vigorously in redistricting challenges?
 

kess

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,020
One of the functions of the college, intended or not, is a tendency to encourage bloc voting that also forces candidates cater to provincial elements in an effort to bridge that divide. Trump campaigning hard in the Northern states and breaking the Blue Wall was the system working as intended, even if the original idea of the college would have considered him unfit for office.
TMW2016-12-07color.png
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
One of the functions of the college, intended or not, is a tendency to encourage bloc voting that also forces candidates cater to provincial elements in an effort to bridge that divide. Trump campaigning hard in the Northern states and breaking the Blue Wall was the system working as intended, even if the original idea of the college would have considered him unfit for office.
TMW2016-12-07color.png

You just said it might not be intended!

Also, the intentions of the system don't change the fact that it is fundamentally antidemocratic.
 

kess

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,020
You just said it might not be intended!

Also, the intentions of the system don't change the fact that it is fundamentally antidemocratic.

As intended... er, if it were intended that way, I guess. I'm trying to divine the original intent of the founders without digging up the rotten root of slavery (which is likely the cause), but in any case, the system has failed.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,763
I'm not sure what to think of black face used in private. Sure it's racist. And sure there shouldn't be photos of a deputy sheriff in public with it on. But the tweet says he should be fired? I don't know about that. Reprimanded? Sure. Fired? I don't know if this rises to that level and would likely depend on other factors not public.

He should be fired. He is an officer. How can propel ignite color trust this man who is supposed to protect the general public when he clearly gives no shits about black people enough to dress in black face.
 

Abstrusity

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,656
what is this Act, exactly?
It limits members of the House of Representatives to 435, necessitating a dramatic shift of House of Representatives power toward smaller states by virtue of needing a minimum of 1 representative. The electoral college further widens that gap, giving three minimum and not too many extra for the larger states. For instance, California has 53 reps and 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 1 rep and 3 electoral votes. California has 78 or so times the population as wyoming, and about 5/8ths of the representation of every wyoming resident, as a result.
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,286
what is this Act, exactly?

It's the act that capped the House at 435 seats. If a state's population increases, it can't just get a new district, it has to swipe one from another state.

This leads to bad representation. Look at Wyoming and Mississippi. Mississippi has almost exactly 5 times the population of Wyoming, but it only has 4 districts. It can't get another one without just taking one from some other state.
 

Piecake

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,298
Frustrated foreign leaders bypass Washington in search of blue-state allies
BRUSSELS — California Gov. Jerry Brown's recent trip to the capital of the European Union had all the trappings of a visit by a head of state — he even got an upgraded title.

"Mr. President, welcome in Brussels," Brown (D) was told this month as he exited his Mercedes van in front of the European Parliament in the spot usually reserved for national leaders. Then he was whisked off to a day of hearings, testimony and high-level meetings in the heart of European power.

Nearly a year into the Trump presidency, countries around the world are scrambling to adapt as the White House has struggled to fill key government positions, scaled back the State Department and upended old alliances. Now some nations are finding that even if they are frustrated by President Trump's Washington, they can still prosper from robust relations with the California Republic and a constellation of like-minded U.S. cities, some of which are bigger than European countries.

Meanwhile, state and municipal governments are expanding or building new offices to help them manage the increased interest in Europe and Asia. This year, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) created the position of deputy mayor for international affairs to better manage relations with foreign governments.

Last week Garcetti huddled in Los Angeles with the Israeli president and Armenian defense minister. The latter stopped by on his way to a peacekeeping conference and briefly described his country's ongoing dispute with Azerbaijan over the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Many world leaders say they have no illusions that they can avoid the White House on critical issues at the core of global stability, especially those related to security. But they have embraced efforts by Democratic governors and mayors to present a different face of U.S. power to the world, albeit at a lower level than the White House or State Department.

"There is an impression by politicians here that President Trump in person is no longer the voice of the free Western world," said Christian Ehler, a German lawmaker who heads the European Parliament's delegation for relations with the United States and helped broker Brown's visit to Brussels. "We are much more carefully looking now to the diversity of what is being discussed in the United States, and we see that California is one of the powerhouses of the world economically."

Ambassadors complain that even when they can secure meetings with administration officials, the policy is often unclear.

"The problem is that people don't know anything," said one Eastern European ambassador in Washington who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share his frank opinion. "They are quite open about it. . . . It doesn't matter what level. It is all levels."

Ehler said that although European countries always have had robust ties with U.S. cities and states for business reasons, the center of their conversations had shifted since Trump took office.

In the past, he said, the federal government was the focus on most big issues. Now when governors and mayors come to visit, "climate change or environmental issues, or regulatory issues, are the focus. Because these issues are dropping down from the capital level to the state or community level," Ehler said.

In the United States, local governments are still figuring out how best to influence policy debates and work with international partners.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...81fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.8b765aa4465c

Well, I guess this is one way that Republicans can increase the power and influence of state governments
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,078
It limits members of the House of Representatives to 435, necessitating a dramatic shift of House of Representatives power toward smaller states by virtue of needing a minimum of 1 representative. The electoral college further widens that gap, giving three minimum and not too many extra for the larger states. For instance, California has 53 reps and 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 1 rep and 3 electoral votes. California has 78 or so times the population as wyoming, and about 5/8ths of the representation of every wyoming resident, as a result.
It's the act that capped the House at 435 seats. If a state's population increases, it can't just get a new district, it has to swipe one from another state.

This leads to bad representation. Look at Wyoming and Mississippi. Mississippi has almost exactly 5 times the population of Wyoming, but it only has 4 districts. It can't get another one without just taking one from some other state.

And keep in mind that having the House overrepresenting the small rural states is the biggest reason that the EC has become so incongruent with the popular vote. Imagine how much better we would be able to represent the US in the House Reps, the Senate, and the Electoral College if:

- The House had 1001 non-DC seats instead of 435
- The more populous part of DC were to be made into its own state by giving it to Maryland or Virginia and then letting either state vote to let that Chunk branch off into its own state
- Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands were made into 1 new state
- Puerto Rico was made into 1 new state
- US Virgin Islands were made into 1 new state
- California was split into 2 states of North California and South California

Like if we did all that as the first priority when Dems gain control of the Federal Government, then we wouldn't even need to worry about trying to pass a constitutional amendment to go from EC to Popular vote.


Also, for pigeon , Kaitos , ShironRedshift , Basileus777 and anyone else that wants an ACTUAL reason to not switch off the EC, how about because it literally takes upwards of a Month to get the FIRST total national popular vote. Now imagine we did our entire election via national popular vote and that it was an actual close race, and we are supposed to have a new president by January 20th, do you really want a system where it could conceivably take literally 1 or 2 MONTHS to do each recount on a national level? Our current system has it so that since we split things off on a state by state basis, we aren't forced to do a recount of literally 140 million+ votes just because one state had a really close vote.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Were you too young for Bush v Gore? We've already had a recount take that long.

I would agree that killing the 1929 act would probably be a good first step before attempting more radical solutions.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,078
Were you too young for Bush v Gore? We've already had a recount take that long.

I would agree that killing the 1929 act would probably be a good first step before attempting more radical solutions.

Right I remember that, but the difference is that:

1) The 5-4 argument that ONE state would take too long to recount was a load of bullshit. However coordinating a recount on a national level would take MUCH longer.

2) That also included the 7-2 ruling that a recount for POTUS elections couldn't just be a part of a state but had to be an entire state, which implies that if we were to switch to a popular vote, a recount would have to be for ALL votes.
 

skullmuffins

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,426
a nationwide recount would take a lot more work than a recount of a single state, but surely the total time would be ~ the length of the longest single state recount, since elections would still be administered on a state-by-state basis and all the recounts would be happening simultaneously?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,078
a nationwide recount would take a lot more work than a recount of a single state, but surely the total time would be ~ the length of the longest single state recount, since elections would still be administered on a state-by-state basis and all the recounts would be happening simultaneously?

But we are talking about a scenario in which the national popular vote is close enough for recounts, which means we would have to recount EVERY VOTE in order to be fair.

Looking through a quick search, we didn't get our FIRST total vote count until December 20th. That means it took FOURTY TWO DAYS to get our first total vote count.
 
Last edited:

Basileus777

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,203
New Jersey
I'm not sure why splitting California into multiple states is being brought up. There's no good reason to open that can of worms as you could do the same with Texas.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
3,078
I'm not sure splitting California into multiple states is being brought up. There's no good reason to open that can of worms as you could do the same with Texas.

Ok so? All that would mean is that we end up basically indirectly turning the Senate into something much more similar to the House, because obviously most of the states that would split up are the big highly populated states.

Plus, Texas still would have to get approval of the Federal government to split up into separate states, so they wouldn't be able to do it until after the GOP retakes control, and all those things I suggested basically guarantee that the GOP can't retake control until they actually learn to appeal to the needs of a much more diverse coalition of voters.
 

Joe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,615
But we are talking about a scenario in which the national popular vote is close enough for recounts, which means we would have to recount EVERY VOTE in order to be fair.

Looking through a quick search, we didn't get our FIRST total vote count until December 20th. That means it took FOURTY TWO DAYS to get our first total vote count.

That's still a month before the inauguration, and even then, we knew who won the popular vote long before we finished that count.

If you're making the argument that we can't do a national popular vote because we wouldn't be able to count all the votes before the inauguration, what we really need you to provide for us is proof that we frequently are not able to get all the votes counted before the inauguration. What I'm hearing is that, basically every time, we know who won the popular vote long before all the votes are counted, and we still manage to get all the votes counted long before inauguration takes place. That sound right?
 
Oct 26, 2017
7,965
South Carolina
Frustrated foreign leaders bypass Washington in search of blue-state allies


https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...81fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.8b765aa4465c

Well, I guess this is one way that Republicans can increase the power and influence of state governments

This is another damage that will have really odd repurcussions from here on out. I mean, can you imagine these big blue states giving back ALL that leverage with foreign powers once a useful, decent POTUS in office again?
 

Basileus777

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,203
New Jersey
Ok so? All that would mean is that we end up basically indirectly turning the Senate into something much more similar to the House, because obviously most of the states that would split up are the big highly populated states.

Plus, Texas still would have to get approval of the Federal government to split up into separate states, so they wouldn't be able to do it until after the GOP retakes control, and all those things I suggested basically guarantee that the GOP can't retake control until they actually learn to appeal to the needs of a much more diverse coalition of voters.
Those things wouldn't prevent the GOP from taking power, just make it harder. Permanent majorities don't happen in this political system. An unpopular Democratic President would still trigger a midterm reaction.

Creating states out of territories that don't have representation is a good idea, splitting states to manipulate Congress isn't.
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,286
But we are talking about a scenario in which the national popular vote is close enough for recounts, which means we would have to recount EVERY VOTE in order to be fair.

I think you misunderstood them. It's not like a recount would be "Let's recount Alabama, and then Alaska, and the Arkansas, and then Arizona, and then..." It would just be "Let's recount them all at the same time." A total recount would thus take exactly as much time as a recount of a particular state (whichever one is the slowest).

Plus, Texas still would have to get approval of the Federal government to split up into separate states, so they wouldn't be able to do it until after the GOP retakes control, and all those things I suggested basically guarantee that the GOP can't retake control until they actually learn to appeal to the needs of a much more diverse coalition of voters.

It probably wouldn't hold up, but Texas actually negotiated in the 1800s to give themselves the right to split up into 5 states instead of just 2. It's an old urban legend in the South (ask any old person, and they'll have heard it). You'd get a campaign going within a month to bring that idea back up and you'd get a gerrymandered Texas split up to 3-5 states that all end up voting red.

If this is the goal, might as well go for broke and pack the Supreme Court. It's the same sort of argument.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
A little out of the blue, but nothing summed up the state of well-meaning white moderates last year more than the people who earnestly argued with me that this sketch was a heartwarming story of people with different lives realizing they have a lot in common, and that the next line would've been about Doug realizing that racism was bad.

 
Oct 25, 2017
3,078
That's still a month before the inauguration, and even then, we knew who won the popular vote long before we finished that count.

If you're making the argument that we can't do a national popular vote because we wouldn't be able to count all the votes before the inauguration, what we really need you to provide for us is proof that we frequently are not able to get all the votes counted before the inauguration. What I'm hearing is that, basically every time, we know who won the popular vote long before all the votes are counted, and we still manage to get all the votes counted long before inauguration takes place. That sound right?
I think you misunderstood them. It's not like a recount would be "Let's recount Alabama, and then Alaska, and the Arkansas, and then Arizona, and then..." It would just be "Let's recount them all at the same time." A total recount would thus take exactly as much time as a recount of a particular state (whichever one is the slowest).

To yes I understand that obviously all states would initiate recounts at the same time, but that still would take way too much time, money, and resources for recounts. As I mentioned, we didn't get our first total vote tally in 2016 until December 20th, which meant it took 42 days. Likely even ONE recount would take longer as recounts would involve disputes about individual votes and whether they should count for A or B. December 20th plus 42 days is already January 31st, which means if just ONE recount happens then that would mean either the length of the previous presidency would have to be extended, or a "temporary POTUS" would need to be put in place, which would lead to even more disputes.

Joe all you are telling me is that we learned who won the final popular vote tally in an election where it was fairly obvious who had won the popular vote AND that did not have any recounts for the entire nation. Now how to you account for an actual scenario in which the popular vote is much MUCH closer. I'll even admit that yes, we can obviously do what we already do for statewide races and declare a winner when the popular vote leader has a mathematical 100% chance of winning (meaning that the difference at that point between the candidate with the most votes and the candidate with the second most votes is bigger than the total number of votes left to count). But until you reach that point it is completely unethical to call a winner.

In fact this is probably why most first world countries still use a parliamentary system for determining a PM or President, because it makes recount related stuff a million times easier when you instead are voting for members of Parliament who then form coalitions to elect that nation's leader.

It probably wouldn't hold up, but Texas actually negotiated in the 1800s to give themselves the right to split up into 5 states instead of just 2. It's an old urban legend in the South (ask any old person, and they'll have heard it). You'd get a campaign going within a month to bring that idea back up and you'd get a gerrymandered Texas split up to 3-5 states that all end up voting red.

If this is the goal, might as well go for broke and pack the Supreme Court. It's the same sort of argument.

Yes I agree that obviously we don't want to allow for conservatives to literally create gerrymandered states, but if hypothetically we had ways to make sure they couldn't gerrymander when splitting the states (such as by forcing them to make the splits along geographical landmarks and very basic latitude and longitude parallels while keeping population split mostly evenly), then would it be that bad to have bigger, more populated states split up?

Those things wouldn't prevent the GOP from taking power, just make it harder. Permanent majorities don't happen in this political system. An unpopular Democratic President would still trigger a midterm reaction.

Creating states out of territories that don't have representation is a good idea, splitting states to manipulate Congress isn't.

I didn't say that the GOP would never retake power. But for the past 100 years the deck has been heavily stacked to overrepresent rural white America. The ideas I listed would make it so that IF the GOP wins back control, it won't be through some bullshit where their voters are overrepresented but instead it would be through the GOP being forced to make actual appeals to more voters than they usually do.

What I'm saying is that the Overton window on government representation would be shifted away from over representing the conservative and Dixiecrat side like it has for way too long and would be shifted towards representing a more diverse and 21st century America.
 
Oct 25, 2017
194
A little out of the blue, but nothing summed up the state of well-meaning white moderates last year more than the people who earnestly argued with me that this sketch was a heartwarming story of people with different lives realizing they have a lot in common, and that the next line would've been about Doug realizing that racism was bad.



Being white and living surrounded by white racists has convinced me that assuredly wouldn't have happened. No matter how much certain white people may want it.

Zmqor.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.