How can the US improve the election process for 2022 and 2024? Can it be done bi-partisanly?

[USMarine75]

Everyone agrees that ND/SD do not have twice the power of CA in determining who is elected president.

I've heard this on RT w/ Bill Maher so much I've lost count. What about IL, NY? After all their state populations are a fraction of CA.... To the point-what is your arbitrary threshold of acceptable on this? It's a crap argument.

Fine merge the Dakotas, but then merge Vermont with NH and possibly Maine, Delaware with MD....though I doubt you'd find those latter items palatable.

Its def not a crap argument. Not in the slightest. And I wasnt arguing for merging states. The Senate was originally established to solicit for the benefit of State's rights which is why Senators weren't originally elected. They've become something different now that they are elected. But they still reflect that all states have equal representation in the Senate, where as the citizenry is reflected by the House. I think having a bicameral Congress with both elements makes sense - will of the people vs State's rights.

And let me be clear I was making an analogy using state power in the Senate. I was typing that as my flight was taking off so I had to be brief and later realized it might not have been clear. And where they are similar is as a check against the rise of Popularism and the idiocracy of the people, as well as to protect the will of the minority.

And FWIW your argument is purely a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Rock4ever]

If you're in the minority, maybe.

Just admit you don't like democracy.

Hot takes like yours call to mind a quote I rather enjoy.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” -H.L. Mencken

Just admit you’re ignorant of the flaws and shortcomings of direct democracy. The matter has been discussed by philosophers and thinkers since antiquity. The people who formed this country were aware of them and made careful considerations.

Nobody in this country EVER moved to a smaller state cuz “MOAR representation”. The notion is absurd. The House represents interests of the populous. California has 53 representatives, while Wyoming has just one. The Senate was created to represent the interests of the states, each state with 2 senators. There is a balance there. Nobody says the US system is perfect, just that it’s pretty damn good.

 

[Rock4ever]

Its def not a crap argument. Not in the slightest. And I wasnt arguing for merging states.

It’s Maher’s solution to his Senate issues. I incorrectly assumed yours also. My bad.

 

[StevenC]

Hot takes like yours call to mind a quote I rather enjoy.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” -H.L. Mencken

Just admit you’re ignorant of the flaws and shortcomings of direct democracy. The matter has been discussed by philosophers and thinkers since antiquity. The people who formed this country were aware of them and made careful considerations.

Nobody in this country EVER moved to a smaller state cuz “MOAR representation”. The notion is absurd. The House represents interests of the populous. California has 53 representatives, while Wyoming has just one. The Senate represents the interests of the states, each state with 2 senators. There is a balance there. Nobody says the US system is perfect, just that it’s pretty damn good.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not pro-democracy. It's a system that heavily incentivises preying on the ill-informed. See: GOP strategy since 1960s.

I wouldn't advocate for direct democracy if there was a better solution, but the USA is a laughably bad democracy and you wouldn't be defending bad democracy if you were in the majority.

And of course people don't move to Wyoming because they're better represented, because Wyoming is a wasteland. All the good places to live vote Dem. But objectively, 55 votes for 40 million people compared to 3 votes for 600,000 people is unfair and biased towards the fewer.

For some smaller numbers you might have an easier time with:

Imagine one place has 4 people and another place has 0 people. Which place should get to determine what happens to the people?

 

[Rock4ever]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not pro-democracy. It's a system that heavily incentivises preying on the ill-informed. See: GOP strategy since 1960s.

I wouldn't advocate for direct democracy if there was a better solution, but the USA is a laughably bad democracy and you wouldn't be defending bad democracy if you were in the majority.

And of course people don't move to Wyoming because they're better represented, because Wyoming is a wasteland. All the good places to live vote Dem. But objectively, 55 votes for 40 million people compared to 3 votes for 600,000 people is unfair and biased towards the fewer.

For some smaller numbers you might have an easier time with:

Imagine one place has 4 people and another place has 0 people. Which place should get to determine what happens to the people?

I findthe discussion and focus on gop and the southern strategy interesting, but only because it completely ignores what was happening on democratic urban areas- Pols need votes to stay in office, and they got them by keeping unionized blue collar white males/families content and employed by jailing minority males, and growing public aid for those falling behind, and ostensibly also for those affected by their mates/partners incarceration.

Have you been to Wyoming? It might not have pro sports teams, but it is one of this country’s most beautiful states.

Your last line reassures me I’m not the one having problems with numbers....not that there was ever any doubt.

 

[StevenC]

I findthe discussion and focus on gop and the southern strategy interesting, but only because it completely ignores what was happening on democratic urban areas- Pols need votes to stay in office, and they got them by keeping unionized blue collar white males/families content and employed by jailing minority males, and growing public aid for those falling behind, and ostensibly also for those affected by their mates/partners incarceration.

Have you been to Wyoming? It might not have pro sports teams, but it is one of this country’s most beautiful states.

Your last line reassures me I’m not the one having problems with numbers....not that there was ever any doubt.

40 and 0.6 might as well be 4 and 0. It's a much better approximation than 55 and 3.

You're basically arguing that people shouldn't decide the president. And if people shouldn't decide the president, why should people they decide anything?

And once again, what are the first three words to the Constitution?

 

[bostjan]

0.6 rounds up to one, though, not down to zero.

 

[StevenC]

0.6 rounds up to one, though, not down to zero.

40,000,000 divided by 10,000,000 is 4
600,000 divided by 10,000,000 is not 0.6

 

[bostjan]

Oh yeah, I'm bad at reading, I suppose.

My point is that it'd be fairer to divide votes in such a way that no one gets completely left out. If they told you that you had 0.1 of a vote, that's categorically less worse than having 0 of a vote.

So, whatever point you are ultimately trying to make might be interfered with by your numerical examples.

 

[Rock4ever]

40 and 0.6 might as well be 4 and 0. It's a much better approximation than 55 and 3.

You're basically arguing that people shouldn't decide the president. And if people shouldn't decide the president, why should people they decide anything?

And once again, what are the first three words to the Constitution?

We the people. I suspect you’re taking it out of context though.

 

[StevenC]

We the people. I suspect you’re taking it out of context though.

I can't see how I would be, unless the next line is "have no right to establish a constitution and would prefer to live under an unelected king".

 

[Jonathan20022]

I can't see how I would be, unless the next line is "have no right to establish a constitution and would prefer to live under an unelected king".

In what ways is the American Democratic system "bad", the system works. The only reason we're seeing outrage in the last two cycles is because of rampart misinformation, and a lack of effort in fortifying people's confidence in their vote and the election as a whole.

I'm the last person you'd see advocating tradition and a need to maintain how we do things. But I don't see the power you're outlining, if you want to count the Dakotas as net 0 electorate vote, then we should just merge the states together then.

You're making a point that the people aren't the ones directly voting a candidate into office, while completely disregarding smaller states' valid representation in the vote count.

Presidents being placed in office in direct opposition to the popular vote occurred 5 times in American History.

 

[Rock4ever]

I can't see how I would be, unless the next line is "have no right to establish a constitution and would prefer to live under an unelected king".

Out of context in how WtP makes for a catchy phrase that people try to apply to themselves or in some other contemporaneous manner. The preamble clearly refers to people at the time of document’s creation.

 

[StevenC]

In what ways is the American Democratic system "bad", the system works. The only reason we're seeing outrage in the last two cycles is because of rampart misinformation, and a lack of effort in fortifying people's confidence in their vote and the election as a whole.

I'm the last person you'd see advocating tradition and a need to maintain how we do things. But I don't see the power you're outlining, if you want to count the Dakotas as net 0 electorate vote, then we should just merge the states together then.

You're making a point that the people aren't the ones directly voting a candidate into office, while completely disregarding smaller states' valid representation in the vote count.

Presidents being placed in office in direct opposition to the popular vote occurred 5 times in American History.

Electoral college is inherently undemocratic and to your 5 in 250 years I would say two of the last 3 presidents.

The American system incentives a two party system, which incentives polarised policy, which leads to no progress on basically anything ever. Parliamentary systems are way better at this. Parliamentary systems always score higher in democratic measurements than America.

House of Representatives is the most representative part of the US government being the closest to proportional to the general population. But the House has no power to enact the will of the people without approval from the Senate, which has an inherently undemocratic makeup based on arbitrary land allocation, and the president, who as we've seen twice in the last 3 presidents, can be elected by a minority. This leads away from progress and compromise to stonewalling until you get a trifecta and then going for extremism. The system of checks and balances breaks down very quickly, as we've seen in the past 6 to 12 years, when people stop acting in good faith.

A two party system means you only have to paint one group as bad, which is way easier than tarring multiple groups. Awful anti-democratic politicians can sustain long careers because there is no viable alternative and no competition. Mitch McConnell for example has been a total negative for all of his constituents over a long career but all he has to do is say the democrats will kill babies and he won't fear losing his seat.

Rampant misinformation is not a flaw in the system, it's the logical conclusion and where it was always heading. The Senate and electoral college where literally put in place on the assumption that voters wouldn't be informed, allowing senators and electors to misinform constituents.

I don't care about the Dakota. I literally live in a part of my own country that has no sway over the rest, but because we're an insignificant population, how much catering should we really get? They have a lower population because people leave because there's nothing there. They have higher birth rates than pupulous blue states and all of those kids leave for actual pastures. Their outsized representation gets them absolutely nothing positive but gets everyone in the country a lot of negative.

Land shouldn't vote.

Out of context in how WtP makes for a catchy phrase that people try to apply to themselves or in some other contemporaneous manner. The preamble clearly refers to people at the time of document’s creation.

But none of the rest of the concurrently authored document belonging to "We the People" refers to the time of creation? For example outdated worries of the electorate being unfamiliar with who is running for president leading to the establishment of the electoral college.

 

[Yul Brynner]

Out of context in how WtP makes for a catchy phrase that people try to apply to themselves or in some other contemporaneous manner. The preamble clearly refers to people at the time of document’s creation.

Ahhh...

So I guess 2a was only meant for the people at the time of its creation. That solves a lot of arguing.

 

[diagrammatiks]

Ahhh...

So I guess 2a was only meant for the people at the time of its creation. That solves a lot of arguing.

it only refers to ball muskets. that makes everything so much easier.

 

[Yul Brynner]

 

[nightflameauto]

I don't care about the Dakota. I literally live in a part of my own country that has no sway over the rest, but because we're an insignificant population, how much catering should we really get? They have a lower population because people leave because there's nothing there. They have higher birth rates than pupulous blue states and all of those kids leave for actual pastures. Their outsized representation gets them absolutely nothing positive but gets everyone in the country a lot of negative.

As an actual South Dakotan, I do think we have a disproportionate amount of say in the election process, even if it's fairly insignificant already. As a state, we swing hard towards the red every single time, and since we don't have proportionate electoral college votes, my vote (which very, VERY rarely is for the Republican candidate) is essentially worthless. But I know a lot of folks in my area, the largest city in South Dakota (which I'm well aware is a joke in a lot of the country) trend blue. But the rest of the state overwhelms the few scattered blue counties and there we go.

But I do think utterly ignoring less populated areas isn't the right direction to head. Decisions for hugely populated massive cities aren't really going to do a damned thing for a state like South (or North) Dakota. Though, it's not like either party has any damned clue what life is like out here in the wastelands, so I don't know what direction would be helpful.

 

[Jonathan20022]

Agreed on the topic of a two party system, it always develops absolutely toxic rhetorics pointing at the other party since it's devolved to low level tribalism at this point.

And yes while the last two republican presidents were indeed minority presidents, there's a few distinct realizations to be had there.

Bush was off by 450k deficit, Bush v Gore goes into more detail about what happened with Florida. With the more recent being Trump with a 2.9m deficit, while far more egregious was still only a 2.1% deficit.

These aren't alarming shifts from the popular vote, I can acknowledge that it could be problematic if this was a regular occurrence. But it is unfortunately a by-product of the system that a state regardless of it's populace is assigned 3 electoral votes by default.

This is Voter Turnout vs a count of Voting capable citizens per state (fdr circa 2019)

State / V. Count 20 / V. Pop 19 / Turnout % / EV Count
Smaller States
North Dakota: 347k / 582k / 60% / 3
South Dakota: 411k / 667k / 62% / 3
Rhode Island: 507k / 854k / 59% / 4
Wyoming: 267k / 445k / 60% / 3
Delaware: 597k / 770k / 77.5% / 3
Wash. DC: 335k / 577k / 58% / 3

Large States
New York: 8.5m / 15.4m / 55% / 29
Idaho: 841k / 1.3m / 63% / 4
Florida: 11m / 17m / 64% / 29
Texas: 11.2m / 21.6m / 51% / 38
California: 17.1m / 30.6m / 56% / 55
Nevada: 1.4m / 2.4m / 58% / 6

How do you feel about granting/removing Electorate voters not only based on population, but voting population turnout? People canvas and promote voting in larger states because large swaths of the country literally don't vote, smaller states already have significantly higher turnout. Is it fair that California with 56% of the state voting is granted 55 EV? Whereas Delaware has nearly 80% of it's population vote, but is only granted 4 EV.

Like I said, I'm not strapped against tradition but I also don't see disregarding minority opinions based on how insignificant their population is by state will bring us any closer to a system that works invariably more democratically than ours.

But on your other points, I whole heartedly agree. The two party incentivized system is shit, career politicians are shit, and the house not reflecting the balance of the senate could definitely be done better.

Sources:
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/president/
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...timates-of-the-voting-age-population-for-2019

 

[StevenC]

Agreed on the topic of a two party system, it always develops absolutely toxic rhetorics pointing at the other party since it's devolved to low level tribalism at this point.

And yes while the last two republican presidents were indeed minority presidents, there's a few distinct realizations to be had there.

Bush was off by 450k deficit, Bush v Gore goes into more detail about what happened with Florida. With the more recent being Trump with a 2.9m deficit, while far more egregious was still only a 2.1% deficit.

These aren't alarming shifts from the popular vote, I can acknowledge that it could be problematic if this was a regular occurrence. But it is unfortunately a by-product of the system that a state regardless of it's populace is assigned 3 electoral votes by default.

This is Voter Turnout vs a count of Voting capable citizens per state (fdr circa 2019)

State / V. Count 20 / V. Pop 19 / Turnout % / EV Count
Smaller States
North Dakota: 347k / 582k / 60% / 3
South Dakota: 411k / 667k / 62% / 3
Rhode Island: 507k / 854k / 59% / 4
Wyoming: 267k / 445k / 60% / 3
Delaware: 597k / 770k / 77.5% / 3
Wash. DC: 335k / 577k / 58% / 3

Large States
New York: 8.5m / 15.4m / 55% / 29
Idaho: 841k / 1.3m / 63% / 4
Florida: 11m / 17m / 64% / 29
Texas: 11.2m / 21.6m / 51% / 38
California: 17.1m / 30.6m / 56% / 55
Nevada: 1.4m / 2.4m / 58% / 6

How do you feel about granting/removing Electorate voters not only based on population, but voting population turnout? People canvas and promote voting in larger states because large swaths of the country literally don't vote, smaller states already have significantly higher turnout. Is it fair that California with 56% of the state voting is granted 55 EV? Whereas Delaware has nearly 80% of it's population vote, but is only granted 4 EV.

Like I said, I'm not strapped against tradition but I also don't see disregarding minority opinions based on how insignificant their population is by state will bring us any closer to a system that works invariably more democratically than ours.

But on your other points, I whole heartedly agree. The two party incentivized system is shit, career politicians are shit, and the house not reflecting the balance of the senate could definitely be done better.

Sources:
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/president/
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...timates-of-the-voting-age-population-for-2019

You're making the same argument that the electoral college is dumb and should be abolished.

California and Delaware should totally both have electoral votes proportional to their voter turn out. Something to the tune of every voter that shows up counts for 1 electoral vote. Do the same with every other state.

On the UK we have the House of Commons (MPs voted in by constituents) and the House of Lords (unelected lifetime appointments for service to the country [controversial]). The Commons is meant to represent the people and the House is meant to be a voice of experience. Currently if a bill passes Commons, it becomes law within a set time limit if the Lord's don't vote it down. This is a super simple solution to the problem in the Senate.

The US Senate needs so much reform because it's totally outdated, way overpowered and very unrepresentative. It often needs 67 votes to do things but needs only 51 to stop things. Just stupid.