Dems to take the House
If you must!
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle
Wes, there is much that I disagree with in your posts, along with some that I agree with. I'm going to go through your posts on a more line by line basis soon and in the spirit of public discourse. But I would like to state up front that I'm not saying that our political system is perfect--far from it. But it's the system we have. What I mean by that is our system of government practically determines the system of our politics. You could plop down our Constitution on another country and you we see a gradual to rapid shift toward our two-party system.
We aren't goverened by a parliamentary scheme, where the powers of the executive derive from the representative sample in the legislative body. In a system like that, people can vote Green, say, knowing that their party won't win a majority but will form a government with another party they can at least get along with. Some people might like that kind of set-up, but the intention of my original post was to say that kind of system isn't perfect either. When I lived in the Czech Republic, parties with scant support from the general public could cause all sorts of mischief by blackmailing the larger parties because said larger parties didn't have the seats to form a government on their own. And this was my point in bringing in Liberia and Iraq, rhetorical grandstanding aside. But I was merely pointing out that 30-30-20-10 splits come with their own sets of anti-democratic problems.
But that's all besides the point, because forming the kinds of coalitions as are seen in other stable Western democracies don't matter. The power of the executive is arrived at separately with Presidential elections. You could open up the current two-party system as wide as you wanted to, and it would drift back to being a two-party system pretty quickly because the executive is outside of that equation. Forming a nice coalition in the House doesn't matter when the President stands outside like he, and maybe someday she, does. And because of that and the stupid electoral college, Presidential politics encourages the development of a national binary political system. Once that is in place, lining up legislatively in one party or the other is about the best people who want to represent the people are going to be able to do if they want to actually govern (note I did not say rule) and not just win elections. This is what people learned in the 1820s and 1830s when our politics were more wide open and more and more common citizens and not just propertied men started to vote. And I don't see that dynamic changing, no matter what jiggery-pokery happens to electoral laws, barring a complete rewriting of the Constitution. To which I say good luck.
More soon. And I now see Arthur made similarish points.
We aren't goverened by a parliamentary scheme, where the powers of the executive derive from the representative sample in the legislative body. In a system like that, people can vote Green, say, knowing that their party won't win a majority but will form a government with another party they can at least get along with. Some people might like that kind of set-up, but the intention of my original post was to say that kind of system isn't perfect either. When I lived in the Czech Republic, parties with scant support from the general public could cause all sorts of mischief by blackmailing the larger parties because said larger parties didn't have the seats to form a government on their own. And this was my point in bringing in Liberia and Iraq, rhetorical grandstanding aside. But I was merely pointing out that 30-30-20-10 splits come with their own sets of anti-democratic problems.
But that's all besides the point, because forming the kinds of coalitions as are seen in other stable Western democracies don't matter. The power of the executive is arrived at separately with Presidential elections. You could open up the current two-party system as wide as you wanted to, and it would drift back to being a two-party system pretty quickly because the executive is outside of that equation. Forming a nice coalition in the House doesn't matter when the President stands outside like he, and maybe someday she, does. And because of that and the stupid electoral college, Presidential politics encourages the development of a national binary political system. Once that is in place, lining up legislatively in one party or the other is about the best people who want to represent the people are going to be able to do if they want to actually govern (note I did not say rule) and not just win elections. This is what people learned in the 1820s and 1830s when our politics were more wide open and more and more common citizens and not just propertied men started to vote. And I don't see that dynamic changing, no matter what jiggery-pokery happens to electoral laws, barring a complete rewriting of the Constitution. To which I say good luck.
More soon. And I now see Arthur made similarish points.
Last edited by shando on November 9th, 2006, 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://getup.austinimprov.com
"She fascinated me 'cause I like to run my fingers through her money."--Abner Jaymadeline wrote:i average 40, and like, a billion grains?
Oh, you did it now. Wes, count to 10.shando wrote:And because of that and the stupid electoral college
PGraph plays every Thursday at 8pm! https://www.hideouttheatre.com/shows/pgraph/
Ah, I see Wes is a defender of the electoral college. Hey it's in the Constitution, which is not perfect, but it's the system we have and one that I like and can live with. But what's startling to me is when someone is a defender of such but doesn't see that it also fosters the bloated two-party system we have.Roy Janik wrote:Oh, you did it now. Wes, count to 10.shando wrote:And because of that and the stupid electoral college
And don't get me started on the anti-democratic nature of the US Senate. On Tuesday night, the Democrtas eked out a 51-49 seat win in the Senate. You know how the vote totals went? 32.1 million Americans voted for Democratic Senatorial candidates, and only 24.524 million Americans voted for Republican Senatorial candidates. That's a 13.4% margin of Democratic victory.
http://getup.austinimprov.com
"She fascinated me 'cause I like to run my fingers through her money."--Abner Jaymadeline wrote:i average 40, and like, a billion grains?
Really? I'm very curious to hear a defense of the electoral college.Roy Janik wrote:Oh, you did it now. Wes, count to 10.shando wrote:And because of that and the stupid electoral college
I can't think of ANYTHING good about it and I can come up with several bad things. I'm reasonable, though, so I will listen to a good explanation. The ball is in your court, Wes.
"Every cat dies 9 times, but every cat does not truly live 9 lives."
-Bravecat
-Bravecat
-
- beardedlamb Offline
- Posts: 2676
- Joined: October 14th, 2005, 1:36 pm
- Location: austin
- Contact:
no one has ever been able to explain to me why this system is still being used and make it make sense. it's completely illogical.York99 wrote:Really? I'm very curious to hear a defense of the electoral college.Roy Janik wrote:Oh, you did it now. Wes, count to 10.shando wrote:And because of that and the stupid electoral college
I can't think of ANYTHING good about it and I can come up with several bad things. I'm reasonable, though, so I will listen to a good explanation. The ball is in your court, Wes.
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
I could explain to you in detail why it was implemented, but the forum is not the ideal place for it. Perhaps we could have the most boring lunch ever.beardedlamb wrote:
no one has ever been able to explain to me why this system is still being used and make it make sense. it's completely illogical.
http://getup.austinimprov.com
"She fascinated me 'cause I like to run my fingers through her money."--Abner Jaymadeline wrote:i average 40, and like, a billion grains?
-
- arclight Offline
- Site Admin
- Posts: 528
- Joined: August 5th, 2005, 1:07 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
On my honeymoon flight to Canada, I read "10 Steps to Repair American Democracy" and for the most part it was cogent, logical, non-partisan, and pretty much unimplementable. Stuff like getting rid of the "winner take all" election system. Example: replace 15 districts electing 1 rep each with five districts that elect 3 reps each - the top 3 vote-getters in each district get elected. This means on average a district gets two majority party reps and one minority party rep. So reps may still make party-line votes, but that's balanced by regional interests - issues that affect their shared district may force them to actually cooperate on to get passed. This leads to a more civil, more effective state government. It also means that minority party voters probably have someone in their district to represent them. Woe be to any progressive who expects Kay Bailey Hutchison or John Cornyn to represent their interests.
I was intrigued by the notion of just getting rid of the Senate. It was a bad compromise at the end of a long session agreed upon only to satisfy the slave states. Fuck that. Unemploy the 100 or so reps of the landed gentry and let the House do all the real work.
Proportional and instant recount voting (IRV) are both mentioned as means of more accurately expressing the will of the people and neuters the ability of third parties being used as foils in a general election (i.e. Republicans funding Green candidates to split the progressive/Democratic vote.)
As to the electoral college - it needs to go because it unfairly gives more power (electoral votes per capita) to low-population (and generally conservative) states. California has 70 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times the number of electoral votes, meaning that a California voter is worth about 26% of a Wyoming voter. The whole reason for the electoral college was again that it was the last model on the table when everyone got tired and went home.
Get this: both the electoral college and the Senate were improvised. And like a bad scene they stink up the political stage to this day. Someone needs to pull the lights on them and get them the hell out of there.
PS: States don't have rights. People do.
I was intrigued by the notion of just getting rid of the Senate. It was a bad compromise at the end of a long session agreed upon only to satisfy the slave states. Fuck that. Unemploy the 100 or so reps of the landed gentry and let the House do all the real work.
Proportional and instant recount voting (IRV) are both mentioned as means of more accurately expressing the will of the people and neuters the ability of third parties being used as foils in a general election (i.e. Republicans funding Green candidates to split the progressive/Democratic vote.)
As to the electoral college - it needs to go because it unfairly gives more power (electoral votes per capita) to low-population (and generally conservative) states. California has 70 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times the number of electoral votes, meaning that a California voter is worth about 26% of a Wyoming voter. The whole reason for the electoral college was again that it was the last model on the table when everyone got tired and went home.
Get this: both the electoral college and the Senate were improvised. And like a bad scene they stink up the political stage to this day. Someone needs to pull the lights on them and get them the hell out of there.
PS: States don't have rights. People do.
There's stuff in Bob's post that even I don't agree with.
Most notably would be the low value placed on hurried and half-assed decisions. Those, Sir, got me through college... and high school... and grad school... and most other things in my life.
A slacker economy isn't as bad as ... as... as... fuck it, i'm bored.
Most notably would be the low value placed on hurried and half-assed decisions. Those, Sir, got me through college... and high school... and grad school... and most other things in my life.
A slacker economy isn't as bad as ... as... as... fuck it, i'm bored.
"Every cat dies 9 times, but every cat does not truly live 9 lives."
-Bravecat
-Bravecat
-
- Brian Boyko Offline
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 1:48 am
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
I waited until a few days after the elections to jump in on this rumpus. I had to see what crazed ranting was flowing before I waded into the deep. But then somebody hit a scientific/mathematical nerve... and now...
Excuse me, somebody's going off on the electoral college system?
Would prefer that your vote holds as little power as possible? You desire a system that is more easily manipulated by fraud? Is that what you want? Because with straight individual "raw" voting, that's what you'll get. The worth of your individual vote would be next to nil, and even slight amounts of fraud would have major ramifications. Manipulating elections in California could be done from Pennsylvania. It would be as easy as pie. (FYI, pie is pretty easy.)
Heck, if you're in favor of going to a popular vote, then you should agree that the Boston Red Sox should have won the 1975 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. After all, the Sox outscored the Big Red Machine by a total of 30-29... yet somehow, the Reds won 4 games to to the Sox' 3, and they were declared the victors. So which is it that matters, the runs scored, or the games won? Is is the number of popular votes won, or the number of electoral votes won? If you're a player on either of those baseball teams, wouldn't you want the one run you score to be the one that decides the game? You wouldn't really care as much about hitting a solo home run if you're already losing by 10 or winning by 10, would you? Wouldn't you rather be Carlton Fish hitting a Game Six walk-off homer off the foul poul? Wouldn't you prefer that your solo shot propels your team to victory? I know I would.
This is why the Madisonian system of electoral college works. (BTW, Bob, it's a bit of an oversimplification to say that this suggestion was nothing more than "the last thing on the table when people got tired." I recommend reading the book "The Founding: A Dramatic Account of the Writing of the Constitution," for a great synopsis of how the U.S. Constitution came to be.) An electoral college not only prevents the big states from running roughshod over the small states, but it gives any individual voter a greater chance of swaying an election. The Madisonian system, by requiring candidates to win states on the way to winning the nation, has forced majorities to win the consent of minorities. I could go into the math for you, but somebody else has done it for me. (Specifically, Alan Natapoff. The MIT physicist spent a few years figuring this out. See a write-up about it here: http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm)
To put it in short form, if there are greater than 135 voters in a given election, voters are better off with districting in any race more lopsided than 55%- 45%. For a nation with millions of voters, the gap between candidates must be razor-thin for districting not to help. In the real world of large nations and uneven contests, voters get more bang for their ballot when they set up a districted, Madisonian electoral system--usually a lot more.
Unless you are an INCREDIBLY altruistic human, you want your vote to have the most say. If you're in Wyoming, you don't want them hippie liberals in California deciding the presidency for you, because you know better than them. If you're in San Francisco, you don't want those uneducated redneck bigots in Wyoming deciding the election for you, because you are obviously more worldly and better educated than they are. If you want your vote to be the one that has the best chance of swaying an election in your favor, you want the electoral college system.
To address the point about fraud, suffice it to say that keeping the election in the hands of multiple individual states with their electoral votes is far better than having a nationwide popular election with one single federally-controlled election oversight official/committee. More checks and balances keep the risk of widespread corruption down. That's a good thing.
And there you have two rebuttals to the "what good is the electoral college system anyway?" argument.
Excuse me, somebody's going off on the electoral college system?
Would prefer that your vote holds as little power as possible? You desire a system that is more easily manipulated by fraud? Is that what you want? Because with straight individual "raw" voting, that's what you'll get. The worth of your individual vote would be next to nil, and even slight amounts of fraud would have major ramifications. Manipulating elections in California could be done from Pennsylvania. It would be as easy as pie. (FYI, pie is pretty easy.)
Heck, if you're in favor of going to a popular vote, then you should agree that the Boston Red Sox should have won the 1975 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. After all, the Sox outscored the Big Red Machine by a total of 30-29... yet somehow, the Reds won 4 games to to the Sox' 3, and they were declared the victors. So which is it that matters, the runs scored, or the games won? Is is the number of popular votes won, or the number of electoral votes won? If you're a player on either of those baseball teams, wouldn't you want the one run you score to be the one that decides the game? You wouldn't really care as much about hitting a solo home run if you're already losing by 10 or winning by 10, would you? Wouldn't you rather be Carlton Fish hitting a Game Six walk-off homer off the foul poul? Wouldn't you prefer that your solo shot propels your team to victory? I know I would.
This is why the Madisonian system of electoral college works. (BTW, Bob, it's a bit of an oversimplification to say that this suggestion was nothing more than "the last thing on the table when people got tired." I recommend reading the book "The Founding: A Dramatic Account of the Writing of the Constitution," for a great synopsis of how the U.S. Constitution came to be.) An electoral college not only prevents the big states from running roughshod over the small states, but it gives any individual voter a greater chance of swaying an election. The Madisonian system, by requiring candidates to win states on the way to winning the nation, has forced majorities to win the consent of minorities. I could go into the math for you, but somebody else has done it for me. (Specifically, Alan Natapoff. The MIT physicist spent a few years figuring this out. See a write-up about it here: http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm)
To put it in short form, if there are greater than 135 voters in a given election, voters are better off with districting in any race more lopsided than 55%- 45%. For a nation with millions of voters, the gap between candidates must be razor-thin for districting not to help. In the real world of large nations and uneven contests, voters get more bang for their ballot when they set up a districted, Madisonian electoral system--usually a lot more.
Unless you are an INCREDIBLY altruistic human, you want your vote to have the most say. If you're in Wyoming, you don't want them hippie liberals in California deciding the presidency for you, because you know better than them. If you're in San Francisco, you don't want those uneducated redneck bigots in Wyoming deciding the election for you, because you are obviously more worldly and better educated than they are. If you want your vote to be the one that has the best chance of swaying an election in your favor, you want the electoral college system.
To address the point about fraud, suffice it to say that keeping the election in the hands of multiple individual states with their electoral votes is far better than having a nationwide popular election with one single federally-controlled election oversight official/committee. More checks and balances keep the risk of widespread corruption down. That's a good thing.
And there you have two rebuttals to the "what good is the electoral college system anyway?" argument.
-
- nadine Offline
- Posts: 915
- Joined: November 28th, 2005, 1:05 pm
- Location: quantum probability
- Contact:
I was having trouble falling asleep.. but trying to follow the mathematical proofs may help.the_orf wrote:(Specifically, Alan Natapoff. The MIT physicist spent a few years figuring this out. See a write-up about it here: http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm)
The ideas itself are interesting though.
And now, regarding the two-party system:
Shannon claims that our Constitution inherently causes drifts towards a two-party system. I argue that the only part of our Constitution that does this is the one-person-one-vote policy. In such a system, a vote becomes a with-us-or-against-us ultimatum; it does not allow for a third option. It is not the fact that the president is elected outside of the congressional elections that matters. It is the voting system that matters.
Allowing a voter to cast a vote for a more extreme, marginal candidate without automatically negating that voter's secondary preference would vastly open up the political choices available to the voters. Several voting systems would allow wider voter variance. Methodologies such as approval voting, instant runoff voting, or rank-order voting would all allow for the either (a) the rise of legitimate third and fourth parties; or (b) the elimination of parties altogether (i.e., independents take over everywhere!).
I, as an individual, have far too many complex opinions to ever affiliate myself in lock-step with a party platform. If there are 10 key issues on a given platform, the chances that I will agree with a party on all 10 are very, very slim. So I'm not about to align myself with a party for some of those issues if it means abandoning my other principles. I freakin' hate political parties. Which is why I hate our one-person-one-vote system. It's a total over-simplification, a lowest-common-denominator practice at its worst.
As Thomas Jefferson said to Francis Hopkins in 1789, "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
Shannon claims that our Constitution inherently causes drifts towards a two-party system. I argue that the only part of our Constitution that does this is the one-person-one-vote policy. In such a system, a vote becomes a with-us-or-against-us ultimatum; it does not allow for a third option. It is not the fact that the president is elected outside of the congressional elections that matters. It is the voting system that matters.
Allowing a voter to cast a vote for a more extreme, marginal candidate without automatically negating that voter's secondary preference would vastly open up the political choices available to the voters. Several voting systems would allow wider voter variance. Methodologies such as approval voting, instant runoff voting, or rank-order voting would all allow for the either (a) the rise of legitimate third and fourth parties; or (b) the elimination of parties altogether (i.e., independents take over everywhere!).
I, as an individual, have far too many complex opinions to ever affiliate myself in lock-step with a party platform. If there are 10 key issues on a given platform, the chances that I will agree with a party on all 10 are very, very slim. So I'm not about to align myself with a party for some of those issues if it means abandoning my other principles. I freakin' hate political parties. Which is why I hate our one-person-one-vote system. It's a total over-simplification, a lowest-common-denominator practice at its worst.
As Thomas Jefferson said to Francis Hopkins in 1789, "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."