The strange greatness of Donald Trump

[Mountain Man]

I explained the reasoning behind the electoral college and why a popular vote system is untenable especially on the national level. I also explained that this was the system devised after much debate by the Founding Fathers with the deliberate intent of preventing a "majority rules" government where the rights of the minority are perpetually suppressed. This is how our congressmen are elected, and it's how our president is elected. It's not a bug, it's a feature, and pointing this out is not an appeal to authority. Not even close.

Your response is to point out that states elect governors by popular vote, which is less a defense of the system and more an illustration of how flawed that system really is, especially in the larger states with more diversity. Perhaps states should consider an electoral system based on counties in order to produce a more representative government. I even presented a very good example of my own city where the popular vote system has allowed the Democrat party to maintain a stranglehold on this town for many, many years. Your only rebuttal is to unconvincingly claim that the popular vote system is somehow superior because it's "simple".

In short, the electoral college is working precisely as intended, and you're wanting to fix something that isn't broken just because it didn't produce the result you wanted in the last election. It's rather childish if you think about it.

[carpedm9587]

I explained the reasoning behind the electoral college and why a popular vote system is untenable especially on the national level.

Going back, you principle argument appears to be "balancing states" and "avoiding mob rule." I have responded to both and shown how they fail. You have not responded to the counter arguments, except to appeal to authority.

I also explained that this was the system devised after much debate by the Founding Fathers with the deliberate intent of preventing a "majority rules" government where the rights of the minority are perpetually suppressed.

So appealing to the FFs gets you no traction with me. Arguments, MM - not appeals to authority. If there is a specific argument they made that you like, put it forth. As for "the deliberate intent of preventing a "majority rules" government where the rights of the minority are perpetually suppressed," you have no basis for this argument. The FFs were at the start of the process, looking forward and trying to imagine what would happen. We are almost 250 years into that process. We have had 45 presidents from six parties. There have been 58 elections of which 53 elections have had popular vote and electoral college aligned. Only five given the office to the man who did not win the popular vote. Although it is common for the incumbent to win a second term, only 17 of the 45 presidents we have had have been of the same party as their predecessor. There is no basis for claiming "the rights of the minority perpetually suppressed." If presidential elections were by popular vote instead of electoral college, only five elections would have differed.

Adams: the election went to Congress, as it would have if the popular vote had been used - no difference.
Hayes: Tilden would have won the election, which would have broken up a 16 year period where a single party (four presidents) captured the White House.
Harrison: Cleveland would have won a few years earlier than he did. Harrison was one of the four presidents mentioned above.
Bush/Trump: Now you get to the nub of it. This is the first place were a case can be made that the popular vote would have given one party control of the White House for potentially 28-32 years (depending on the outcome of 2020). But we had single party control of the White House for 28 years under the electoral system as well (1801-1829) - so that complaint is pretty weak.

This is how our congressmen are elected, and it's how our president is elected. It's not a bug, it's a feature, and pointing this out is not an appeal to authority. Not even close.

You have not shown it to be a justified "feature." I believe it is unjustified because it disproportionately weights the votes of the body politic, giving one person's vote more power than another. That does not happen at the local, district, or state levels. You have not made a case for it at the federal level.

And this is NOT how our Congressmen are elected. Members of the house are elected by the popular vote of their districts. Senators are elected by the popular votes of their state. Each is elected by the popular vote of the constituency. ONLY the president is not. You have not made a case for this exception.

Your response is to point out that states elect governors by popular vote, which is less a defense of the system and more an illustration of how flawed that system really is, especially in the larger states with more diversity. Perhaps states should consider an electoral system based on counties in order to produce a more representative government. I even presented a very good example of my own city where the popular vote system has allowed the Democrat party to maintain a stranglehold on this town for many, many years. Your only rebuttal is to unconvincingly claim that the popular vote system is somehow superior because it's "simple".

No - my rebuttal is to note is that one-person, one vote is the accepted means of voting at all political levels except the presidential level. If you are going to make a case for an exception, you need to make the case. The concept of "majority rules" is a basic tenet of a democracy. You would like to dismiss this as "mob rule," but you simply want to replace it with "a smaller mob can overrule a larger mob" with no explanation except "well...because mob rule is bad." There is no basis for this claim and no historical evidence that a shift to the popular vote would have had any significant impact on power in the U.S.

In short, the electoral college is working precisely as intended, and you're wanting to fix something that isn't broken just because it didn't produce the result you wanted in the last election. It's rather childish if you think about it.

Actually - it isn't doing much of anything it intended. One of the primary reasons that the FFs wanted a electoral system was to place a check between the general populace and the selection of an actual leader. THey wanted to insert an step during which, if the popular vote was for a clearly unsuited person, the electoral college could step in and vote otherwise. Although one or two have done so over the last 58 elections, there electoral college has NEVER reversed the election because of an unsuitable president - and we have had some doozies (including the misanthropic buffoon currently holding the office).

The electoral college is a quaint idea that was never a good one to begin with. If it cannot be abolished (which would require a constitutional amendment, I am 100% behind the Interstate Compact that will make it essentially moot.

[One Bad Pig]

It is easy to say, "it's bad." It is a lot harder to make a post in which an argument is actually framed so it can be examined and discussed. What I know from your post is "OBP thinks Michel's argument is bad." Nice to know, I guess. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But your post provides no basis for evaluation or for even beginning to reassess my position.

OBP thinks that discussion in general with Michel is pointless, so he no longer bothers. When you find an actual foundation for your beliefs, I'll reconsider.

[Mountain Man]

The concept of "majority rules" is a basic tenet of a democracy.

America is not a democracy, it is a representative republic and is deliberately designed so that the majority doesn't always rule. In fact, the Founding Fathers explicitly rejected the notion that the majority has an inherent right to impose its will on the minority, and the system they devised has worked perfectly for over 200-years creating an ever changing balance of power in Washington which, almost counterintuitively, has created an exceptionally stable government. You just have your panties in a twist because you don't like the guy currently in the White House. To that I say, get over it. You only have six more years of Trump, and then things will shift again and we'll have a new guy (or gal) who half the voters didn't really want, and the cycle will continue.

And here's something I hadn't considered...

In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.

There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.

Of course, we could graft a run-off system onto our Constitution; the two top candidates in, say, a 10-person race, would then run against one another for the presidency. But that could easily mean that the American people would have a choice between a candidate of the pro-choice party and a candidate of the pro-gun party. If you thought the choice was bad this year, it could be far worse.

Those who complain now that it is unfair for Donald Trump to become president when he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton have not considered either the implications of what they are proposing or the genius of the Framers.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ge_132499.html

It seems that "one person; one vote" is not so simple after all.

[carpedm9587]

America is not a democracy, it is a representative republic and is deliberately designed so that the majority doesn't always rule.

First, the term is actually "democratic republic" or "representative democracy." A republic is a nation that places power in the hands of the people and their representatives, so a "representative republic" is redundant. Second, America is not a democratic republic (or representative democracy, if you prefer) because it has an electoral college. It is a representative democracy because we elect representatives who make decisions for us, instead of voting for issues directly. Eliminating the electoral college does not eliminate that. And we retain a balance of state/individual rights in our congressional representatives, in which one house is elected by population and the other by state. Finally, the "democracy" in "representative democracy" is important; we elect our representatives democratically. Except at the presidential level, of course. AT that level, the FFs saw fit to institute the electoral college system. I think I've provided enough data to show it's not necessary.

In fact, the Founding Fathers explicitly rejected the notion that the majority has an inherent right to impose its will on the minority, and the system they devised has worked perfectly for over 200-years creating an ever changing balance of power in Washington which, almost counterintuitively, has created an exceptionally stable government. You just have your panties in a twist because you don't like the guy currently in the White House. To that I say, get over it. You only have six more years of Trump, and then things will shift again and we'll have a new guy (or gal) who half the voters didn't really want, and the cycle will continue.

Again, an appeal to the FFs does not help you. I provided statistics that the electoral college has not been substantively different from the popular vote for the past almost 250 years. The FFs were guessing about the future. We now know their elaborate construct hasn't done much and isn't necessary. The popular vote would have created almost exactly the same results, except in the past 20 years, where the presidency would have (presumably) remained in Democratic hands for the last four presidencies. You still haven't made a case that a slightly smaller mob is better than a slightly bigger one.

And here's something I hadn't considered...

In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.

There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.

Of course, we could graft a run-off system onto our Constitution; the two top candidates in, say, a 10-person race, would then run against one another for the presidency. But that could easily mean that the American people would have a choice between a candidate of the pro-choice party and a candidate of the pro-gun party. If you thought the choice was bad this year, it could be far worse.

Those who complain now that it is unfair for Donald Trump to become president when he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton have not considered either the implications of what they are proposing or the genius of the Framers.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ge_132499.html

It seems that "one person; one vote" is not so simple after all.

First - this is all largely speculation. Second, we can solve this by states adopting an instant-runoff ballot, or by the process enshrined in the constitution: the election goes to the Congress, which has exactly the state/people mix with which you seem to be enamored. This has happened before in our history and the world did not end. Again - you haven't made a case for "the popular vote won't work."

Finally, the electoral college was created by the FFs for two reasons. One was because they feared that a tyrant could manipulate the public and achieve the highest office in the land. The electoral college was intended to be a buffer to that reality. THAT clearly doesn't work. The second was to give power to smaller states. This was in an age when the balance of power - state vs. federal - was clearly intended to lean towards states. The early U.S. was intended to be more like the European Union than what it has become. Times have changed - and now the only thing the electoral college does is serve as a vehicle to thwart the will of the majority.

I can understand why conservative Republicans want to cling to it so vociferously: it has put the last two Republican presidents in office for their first term. All of the demographics point to a strong trend towards moderation and liberalism in the population, and significantly more registered Democrats than Republicans. For Republicans to win the House or presidency requires significant strategy so that the minority can dominate. I believe that is the reason for widespread gerrymandering by Republicans (Democrats do it too, but at nowhere near the same level) and widespread voter suppression (especially of the poor and minorities - because they tend to vote Democratic). Perhaps the Republicans and conservatives should consider, if they wish to actually BE the majority, examining their positions and asking themselves, "why are we losing in the court of public opinion?" To dominate - you have to represent what most people want. If you don't, then by definition you are forcing positions held by a minority on the majority - so a smaller mob is ruling a larger one.

[Mountain Man]

First, the term is actually "democratic republic" or "representative democracy."

Regardless of what you want to call it (and representative republic is not a name I just made up), the entire point was to establish a system where the majority didn't have unfettered power to tyrannize the minority, and history is on my side as proof that the system works, and that it works very, very well.

The popular vote would have created almost exactly the same results, except in the past 20 years.

The burden is yours to explain why those exceptions are a problem other than you don't happen to like the guys who were elected. Wanting to change the rules just because you didn't win is how children deal with a problem.

You still haven't made a case that a slightly smaller mob is better than a slightly bigger one.

This just goes to show that you haven't actually understood my argument. The point, of course, and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, is that no "mob" should be able to always impose its will on everybody else. The balance of power should always be in flux, and it is. The system is working exactly as intended, and the witness of history tells us that's a good thing.

[carpedm9587]

Regardless of what you want to call it (and representative republic is not a name I just made up), the entire point was to establish a system where the majority didn't have unfettered power to tyrannize the minority, and history is on my side as proof that the system works, and that it works very, very well.

First, you want to make a point about "Representative Republic" and you link me to a conservative blog? Do you really think that makes your case? The fact that a lot of people mistakenly use the language doesn't make it right. I provided the definition of republic, which contains the concept of representation, making "representative republic" redundant and omitting the concept of democracy, which is the heart of our disagreement. We live in a representative democracy or a democratic republic - a country in which we democratically elect representatives. And that has NOTHING to do with the electoral college. We would remain a representative democracy if we eliminate the electoral college, except that we would be electing the office of president by a majority vote.

Second, I provided data that your "historical proof" is nothing of the kind: having had the popular vote in place for the last 58 elections would have had minimal impact on presidential elections.

The burden is yours to explain why those exceptions are a problem other than you don't happen to like the guys who were elected. Wanting to change the rules just because you didn't win is how children deal with a problem.

I didn't say they were a problem, nor is my basis for wanting the electoral college eliminated rooted in "who won." It is rooted in exactly what I said: the existing system disproportionately empowers the vote of individuals on the basis of where they live, with differences ranging all the way up to 373%. When one person's vote is worth 373% of another person's vote, one person is being granted more voting power than another. That is intrinsically undemocratic. Ergo, the electoral college was a bad idea. And historical data shows it is unnecessary.

This just goes to show that you haven't actually understood my argument. The point, of course, and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, is that no "mob" should be able to always impose its will on everybody else. The balance of power should always be in flux, and it is. The system is working exactly as intended, and the witness of history tells us that's a good thing.

I actually HAVE understood your argument. You want to label the will of the majority "mob rule" and declare it bad. But all you are effectively doing is creating a system where a slightly smaller mob can overrule a slightly larger mob. It's still mob rule - just not the biggest mob. You will have a hard time making the case that a smaller mob should be given the power when they disagree with the majority. That is intrinsically undemocratic. We have a balance of representation in Congress, and three co-equal branches of government. There are more than enough balances of power. Scrapping democratic election of a president has not been shown to be warranted, IMO.

[Sparko]

A bad argument is a bad argument - it doesn't matter when it was put forward and by whom it was put forward.

And with that bad argument I realize that there is no debating you (yet again)

How would you like it if a Republican Texas was the sole determiner of who was elected President in every election because they had the most population?

[Mountain Man]

I actually HAVE understood your argument. You want to label the will of the majority "mob rule" and declare it bad.

Like I said, you haven't actually understood my argument.

[carpedm9587]

And with that bad argument I realize that there is no debating you (yet again)

How would you like it if a Republican Texas was the sole determiner of who was elected President in every election because they had the most population?

First - it cannot happen.

Second - if my views are not held by the majority of people - then I have to accept that my views are not held by the majority of people. I can either:

1) Find a different country
2) Work to make my views the majority
3) Live with a republican president

What you and MM want to do is say, "even though my views don't represent the majority - I want to win anyway!

Not exactly democratic, IMO.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said, you haven't actually understood my argument.

That is the brief version of your argument, MM:

The minority needs to be protected against the majority, because the majority is "mob rule."

If you think it's not, feel free to correct whatever part of what I just said is NOT correct. Do you not, in the end, want the smaller mob to be able to win?

[Sparko]

First - it cannot happen.

and if it could? How would you feel about it?

Second - if my views are not held by the majority of people - then I have to accept that my views are not held by the majority of people. I can either:

1) Find a different country
2) Work to make my views the majority
3) Live with a republican president

What you and MM want to do is say, "even though my views don't represent the majority - I want to win anyway!

Not exactly democratic, IMO.

We are a FEDERAL REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. And we don't want one or two states determining the President for the other states and populations. How do you think the EU countries would like Germany to be the sole determiner of their leader?

States are more than just geographical boundaries.

[carpedm9587]

and if it could? How would you feel about it?

Already answered. How I "feel" is largely irrelevant. What I can do about it is relevant.

We are a FEDERAL REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. And we don't want one or two states determining the President for the other states and populations. How do you think the EU countries would like Germany to be the sole determiner of their leader?

First, there is no conflict here. A federal republic is a representational form of government with federal-level and state-level representation. Nothing I have proposed is inconsistent with a "federal republic." We are also a "representative democracy." We elect our representatives.

Nothing I have said alters our status as a federal republic or a republic democracy. It simply aligns the vote for the president with the vote at every other level of our government (federal, state, and local), and ensures that each person has one and only one vote.

States are more than just geographical boundaries.

They absolutely are. No question about it. That's why we have state governments.

[Sparko]

A federal republic is a representational form of government with federal-level and state-level representation. Nothing I have proposed is inconsistent with a "federal republic." We are also a "representative democracy." We elect our representatives.

Nothing I have said alters our status as a federal republic or a republic democracy. It simply aligns the vote for the president with the vote at every other level of our government (federal, state, and local), and ensures that each person has one and only one vote.



They absolutely are. No question about it. That's why we have state governments.

And why we have the electoral college. A 100% popular vote for President would short circuit the states powers.

You really should go read the debates on the matter that OBP suggested. At least then you would understand why we don't have a popular vote for President. As it stands your ignorance is overwhelming on the topic.

[carpedm9587]

And why we have the electoral college. A 100% popular vote for President would short circuit the states powers.

A popular vote ignores state powers in favor of the individual. The current system ignores individuals in favor of state powers. If the vote were to balance these things, then each state would divide their electoral votes the same way Congress is elected: one electoral vote allocated on the basis of the congressional district, and two electoral votes allocated based on the vote of the state. That is what I would consider ideal. But it is not enforceable. So the second best is to simply revert to the popular vote and align the presidency with the other offices in our country. States still have representation in Congress and there is still a judicial branch.

You really should go read the debates on the matter that OBP suggested. At least then you would understand why we don't have a popular vote for President. As it stands your ignorance is overwhelming on the topic.

What makes you think I haven't? And asserting someone is "ignorant" does not make them actually ignorant. I actually have a pretty extensive knowledge of U.S. history and government. Disagreeing is not the same as not knowing.

You really should try to stay focused on the arguments and set aside the personal observations. They don't really help your arguments. But if it's the best you can do....