The American Constitution

[Alan Klein]

some states over here are using rank preference voting that does something similar.   I think one Congressional seat in 2018 was decided in this manner (maybe Maine).

Don;t know about the COngressional seat.  But Maine splits its electoral vote for the president based on it's state's popular vote.  I think every other state there's a winner take all for the state's electoral vote.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Both were Democrats.

virtually all senators and congressman from the south were Democrats.   This only changed with the Civil Rights legislation and Nixon's southern strategy in 1968.  Neither Wallace or Thurmond ran for President as Democrats

[Alan Goldhammer]

Don;t know about the COngressional seat.  But Maine splits its electoral vote for the president based on it's state's popular vote.  I think every other state there's a winner take all for the state's electoral vote.

I think Nebraska does this as well

[Alan Klein]

virtually all senators and congressman from the south were Democrats.   This only changed with the Civil Rights legislation and Nixon's southern strategy in 1968.  Neither Wallace or Thurmond ran for President as Democrats

But you were the one who reminded us they were segregationists. And while not running as Democrats, (there were others who did), they both were Democrats as was the rest of the segregationist south.   I was just pointing out that fact. 

[JoeKitchen]

  there  were multiple parties on the early part of our nation's history.   Strom Thurmond got electoral votes on 1948 but winning for states. On 1968 George Wallace won four states.   Both those candidates ran racial segregation campaigns.   IIRC, the framers of the Constitution did not figure political parties into the concept of the electoral college.

This may be true, but the net effect, intended or not, was exactly that.  Insofar as other parties existing other then the main two, those have been few and far in between and never lasting that long. 

[JoeKitchen]

there is a significant Moroccan population.

35.74M, in other words, a 1/10 ours.  Also, notice I said homogeneous too; probably a more important feature then size insofar as what I was talking about.  How diverse is Morocco? 

PS, also, Morocco is only 4.5407953647617% (just for precision I listed all the decimal points) the size of ours in terms of geography.  Geography was another aspect I listed.   

[Robert Roaldi]

It's not so simple.  Drawing lines is a political matter.  It's not like a weather man deciding where to place a weather station. 

For example, let's take a state with two election districts.  The state has one major city.  The rest of the state is rural, basically farm land.  The population is evenly divided between rural and urban with a slight advantage to Democrat in the cities.  Democrats run the legislature since they have more votes.  So how would you draw the lines to make up the two districts? 


Someone might say, let's divide the rural in half and the city in half and then combine them so each district is half urban and half rural.  That sounds fair.  But wait.  The people in this state feels they could have better representation in Congress if they split the districts so that one is all urban and the other rural.  That way, the representative for the farm area who knows the most about farming can represent 100% of the state's farming interests.  He won't waste time on urban issues he knows little about.  And the other representative who represents 100% of the urban area and knows the most about cities can represent the state's urban issues the best in Congress.  He won;t waste time representing the state's farm interest he knows nothing about. 

So now the second solution sounds fair.  But wait.  The urban voters are mainly Democrat and the rural area is mainly Republican. If the legislature votes the second, they'll be a Democrat and Republican in congress.  If they vote the first way,  there will be two Democrats in congress and no Republicans.  That sounds unfair.  But wait.  We originally said that was a fair way to draw the lines.  So now we ask the Supreme COurt to decide what's fair.  How the heck do they know?  Both ways really are fair even though party affiliation is different depending on the method.  That's why this is a political issue that has to be decided by each state's legislature.  The Supreme COurt did the right thing by getting out of the refereeing business because there is no way for it to make it "fair".  As Roberts said, there are no standards to make that determination unless COngress decides to make it  Certainly the courts can't do it because they can't choose between two fair methods or know how the legislature and people of any one state want to set up their representation in Congress..

Well of course it's not simple, no reason it would be. But coming up with a framework to solve the problems you just described and fine-tuning them over the years has go to be better (and is elsewhere) than letting biased elected politicians at it. We've seen where that leads.

[Alan Klein]

Well of course it's not simple, no reason it would be. But coming up with a framework to solve the problems you just described and fine-tuning them over the years has go to be better (and is elsewhere) than letting biased elected politicians at it. We've seen where that leads.

You my be right.  There may be a better way.  But the Supreme Court just ruled that they were not the ones to resolve the problem.  It's a political issue that has to be solved politically not judicially.  The courts can't decide which method is "fair".  They have no standards they can use.  They would have no way to select which of my two samples are fairs. 

Curious.  Which of my two ways do you see as fairer in my example?  And why? 

[Alan Klein]

Trump can constitutionally bomb Iran without further congressional approval, so says the US Senate.  Whew.  That was a close one.  They were really worried they might actually have to vote to bomb Iran by giving the president direct approval.  And who needs to make that decision.   

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/450775-senate-rejects-attempt-to-curb-trumps-iran-war-powers

[D Fuller]

"A Constitutional Republic, if you can keep it." It's obvious that the Democrats don't want to keep it. Problem is that Democrats live in big cities and haven't a clue what the real world is like. So far, Republicans have been able to protect the Dems from painful reality, but if the Electoral College disappears everyone's gonna have to face that reality, just as the people of Venezuela have had to face it, and the people of North Korea have had to face it. I could go on, but to save Alan further pain I'll stop there.

The US is not a republic because it has the Electoral College. It is a republic because it has Representatives and Senators. You’ve made this claim too many times to let it go unchallenged. It just misunderstands what makes a republic.

That said, It wasn’t very long ago that Republicans were clamoring for the abolition of the Electoral College. Perhaps you don’t remember that.

I don’t think the issue is nearly as clear as you like to think. The Electoral college currently disenfranchises millions of conservative voters in New York, California, Massachusetts, and other consistently Dem voting states. It also disenfranchises millions of liberal voters in Alabama, Texas and other Republican states. Meanwhile, the Senate provides real power to smaller states.

You repeatedly say that the Electoral College gives power and attention to smaller states. I don’t see it. I live in Maine. We get precious little attention from any presidential candidate, and we’re a small swing state. The bulk of the attention from any presidential campaign goes not to the largest states, but to a half-dozen large-ish swing states like Florida and Ohio, and a couple of weird early-election states: New Hampshire  and Idaho. I was a staunch supporter of the Electoral College for most of my life, for reasons similar to what you’ve stared, but I’m just not sure I see it working as I thought it did, or as the framers of the constitution intended.

The framers, as I understand them, imagined it would protect the country from the populist passions of the people. Has it ever actually done that? Throughout history, when populist passions have arisen, has the Electoral College ever stood against that tide? Should it have? If not, what is its actual reason for being?

The function you (and I, formerly) ascribe to the Electoral College is, in fact, a function of the Senate. The function the framers of the constitution ascribed to it has never worked. It might be time to put it to bed.

[JoeKitchen]

The US is not a republic because it has the Electoral College. It is a republic because it has Representatives and Senators. You’ve made this claim too many times to let it go unchallenged. It just misunderstands what makes a republic.

That said, It wasn’t very long ago that Republicans were clamoring for the abolition of the Electoral College. Perhaps you don’t remember that.

I don’t think the issue is nearly as clear as you like to think. The Electoral college currently disenfranchises millions of conservative voters in New York, California, Massachusetts, and other consistently Dem voting states. It also disenfranchises millions of liberal voters in Alabama, Texas and other Republican states. Meanwhile, the Senate provides real power to smaller states.

You repeatedly say that the Electoral College gives power and attention to smaller states. I don’t see it. I live in Maine. We get precious little attention from any presidential candidate, and we’re a small swing state. The bulk of the attention from any presidential campaign goes not to the largest states, but to a half-dozen large-ish swing states like Florida and Ohio, and a couple of weird early-election states: New Hampshire  and Idaho. I was a staunch supporter of the Electoral College for most of my life, for reasons similar to what you’ve stared, but I’m just not sure I see it working as I thought it did, or as the framers of the constitution intended.

The framers, as I understand them, imagined it would protect the country from the populist passions of the people. Has it ever actually done that? Throughout history, when populist passions have arisen, has the Electoral College ever stood against that tide? Should it have? If not, what is its actual reason for being?

The function you (and I, formerly) ascribe to the Electoral College is, in fact, a function of the Senate. The function the framers of the constitution ascribed to it has never worked. It might be time to put it to bed.

George W Bush won the election because he was able to change WV (a solid blue state prior) into a swing state and get them to vote republican.  He put focus on WV even though people thought it was futile and managed to change it. 

It was those three votes that won him the election.  The electoral vote was 271 to 266; literally if Bush ignored WV he would not have been president.  The vote would have been 269 to 268 favoring Gore. 

A similar episode could happen with Maine.  Also, lets not forget, before FDR, the saying was "as Maine goes, so goes the nation."  You are just a few generations to late to the party, but perhaps a new Maine party will be had before you leave. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

35.74M, in other words, a 1/10 ours.  Also, notice I said homogeneous too; probably a more important feature then size insofar as what I was talking about.  How diverse is Morocco? 

PS, also, Morocco is only 4.5407953647617% (just for precision I listed all the decimal points) the size of ours in terms of geography.  Geography was another aspect I listed.

you misunderstood.   I was speaking of Moroccans living on The Netherlands.   There are c also people from former and present Dutch colonies,.  It is not as homogeneous  as you pprtrayed in the original post.

[Alan Klein]

The US is not a republic because it has the Electoral College. It is a republic because it has Representatives and Senators. You’ve made this claim too many times to let it go unchallenged. It just misunderstands what makes a republic.

That said, It wasn’t very long ago that Republicans were clamoring for the abolition of the Electoral College. Perhaps you don’t remember that.

I don’t think the issue is nearly as clear as you like to think. The Electoral college currently disenfranchises millions of conservative voters in New York, California, Massachusetts, and other consistently Dem voting states. It also disenfranchises millions of liberal voters in Alabama, Texas and other Republican states. Meanwhile, the Senate provides real power to smaller states.

You repeatedly say that the Electoral College gives power and attention to smaller states. I don’t see it. I live in Maine. We get precious little attention from any presidential candidate, and we’re a small swing state. The bulk of the attention from any presidential campaign goes not to the largest states, but to a half-dozen large-ish swing states like Florida and Ohio, and a couple of weird early-election states: New Hampshire  and Idaho. I was a staunch supporter of the Electoral College for most of my life, for reasons similar to what you’ve stared, but I’m just not sure I see it working as I thought it did, or as the framers of the constitution intended.

The framers, as I understand them, imagined it would protect the country from the populist passions of the people. Has it ever actually done that? Throughout history, when populist passions have arisen, has the Electoral College ever stood against that tide? Should it have? If not, what is its actual reason for being?

The function you (and I, formerly) ascribe to the Electoral College is, in fact, a function of the Senate. The function the framers of the constitution ascribed to it has never worked. It might be time to put it to bed.

The Electoral college does not disenfranchise anyone.  Your vote counts only in your state.  If for example you vote for Democrat senator, and the Republican wins, your vote is gone.  So it is with the elector.  The elector represents your state.  But even there it's not as bad for you in Maine and Nebraska as it is in the rest of the states.  In these two states, the electors are allocated based on the popular vote in the state. So in the 2016 presidential election, Trump got 1 elector and Clinton got 3.  So your vote definitely counts.   In the rest of the states except Nebraska, it's a winner take all electors.  There is nothing stopping other states from allocating electors according to the popular vote in their state just like Maine and Nebraska do.  Obviously, most states prefer a winner take all procedure. 
https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine

[D Fuller]

The Electoral college does not disenfranchise anyone.  Your vote counts only in your state.  If for example you vote for Democrat senator, and the Republican wins, your vote is gone.  So it is with the elector.  The elector represents your state.  But even there it's not as bad for you in Maine and Nebraska as it is in the rest of the states.  In these two states, the electors are allocated based on the popular vote in the state. So in the 2016 presidential election, Trump got 1 elector and Clinton got 3.  So your vote definitely counts.   In the rest of the states except Nebraska, it's a winner take all electors.  There is nothing stopping other states from allocating electors according to the popular vote in their state just like Maine and Nebraska do.  Obviously, most states prefer a winner take all procedure. 
https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine

Alan, you’re arguing my point for me. The way Maine and Nebraska allocate electors is novel; if it were adopted across the country, it would move us much further toward 1 person/1 vote presidential elections than we currently are. So conservatives in NY and liberals in TX would have a greater voice in presidential elections.

[D Fuller]

George W Bush won the election because he was able to change WV (a solid blue state prior) into a swing state and get them to vote republican.  He put focus on WV even though people thought it was futile and managed to change it. 

It was those three votes that won him the election.  The electoral vote was 271 to 266; literally if Bush ignored WV he would not have been president.  The vote would have been 269 to 268 favoring Gore. 

A similar episode could happen with Maine.  Also, lets not forget, before FDR, the saying was "as Maine goes, so goes the nation."  You are just a few generations to late to the party, but perhaps a new Maine party will be had before you leave.

So your argument is that the Electoral College allowed a campaign to win an election by concentrating on three states? And you think this is good? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[jeremyrh]

In case any non-USAns are curious about what sort of black Alan and Co are attempting to portray as white this time me, here is a simple primer :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/28/the-supreme-courts-shameless-and-shameful-endorsement-of-gerrymandering?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Rob C]

virtually all senators and congressman from the south were Democrats.   This only changed with the Civil Rights legislation and Nixon's southern strategy in 1968.  Neither Wallace or Thurmond ran for President as Democrats

Heysoos, Alan, I thought you'd written Nikon's southerm strategy, and gone for some brilliant revisionism!

Sadly, not to be...

;-)

[Jeremy Roussak]

In case any non-USAns are curious about what sort of black Alan and Co are attempting to portray as white this time me, here is a simple primer :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/28/the-supreme-courts-shameless-and-shameful-endorsement-of-gerrymandering?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

That is not a "primer"; it's a partisan rant from an individual who disagrees with a decision.

Jeremy

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The Electoral college does not disenfranchise anyone.  Your vote counts only in your state.  If for example you vote for Democrat senator, and the Republican wins, your vote is gone.  So it is with the elector.  The elector represents your state.  But even there it's not as bad for you in Maine and Nebraska as it is in the rest of the states.  In these two states, the electors are allocated based on the popular vote in the state. So in the 2016 presidential election, Trump got 1 elector and Clinton got 3.  So your vote definitely counts.   In the rest of the states except Nebraska, it's a winner take all electors.  There is nothing stopping other states from allocating electors according to the popular vote in their state just like Maine and Nebraska do.  Obviously, most states prefer a winner take all procedure. 
https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine

interesting. So, what's stopping the other states from adopting a similar system?

Cheers,
Bart

[jeremyrh]

That is not a "primer"; it's a partisan rant from an individual who disagrees with a decision.

Jeremy

Like  "terrorist", the word "rant" serves mainly to define the prejudices of the speaker.