Elizabeth Warren says she wants to eliminate Electoral College

[durangodawood]

I don't think they are similar notions, but OK. So for you it's a basic axiom.

Now let's test that axiom. The majority in the nation votes for A. The majority in a district votes for B. Why does the consent to rule of the nation trump the consent to rule for the district?

Each person had an equal say. If there's a better way to gauge "consent of the governed" than a popular vote, I'm all ears.

And each district has its own level of govt over which no other district has a say.

 

[98cwitr]

I'll be honest. I'd rather read President Madison's own writings than anything by CTist Michael Rense.



That ain't gonna happen.

Then here ya go: Federalist Papers No. 51 - Bill of Rights Institute

Never say never.

 

[Albion]

The principle I'm promoting here is equal voting power per voter.[/quote
Yes. I got that.

[qutoe How exactly does equal population rep districts violate that?

Its that there are districts...and districts that preserve regional representation as you said.

 

[98cwitr]

Its that there are districts...and districts that preserve regional representation as you said.

TBH, couldnt counties simply do that? Their boundaries aren't as malleable.

 

[Resha Caner]

And each district has its own level of govt over which no other district has a say.

Since the 14th amendment, that's not really true. The national government overrules local government more and more as time goes on. In effect, then, other districts do have a say.

Each person had an equal say. If there's a better way to gauge "consent of the governed" than a popular vote, I'm all ears.

You're not measuring individuals. You're measuring the majority. So the question becomes, is the majority your only concern?

 

[durangodawood]

Its that there are districts...and districts that preserve regional representation as you said.

Yes. Equal population districts do that without violating the equal consent principle.

 

[Albion]

TBH, couldnt counties simply do that? Their boundaries aren't as malleable.

do what?

You cannot mean that counties could each elect members of the House of Representatives, so..?

 

[Albion]

Yes. Equal population districts do that without violating the equal consent principle.

But that isn't the principle that you started us off with in this exchange.

 

[durangodawood]

....You're not measuring individuals. You're measuring the majority. So the question becomes, is the majority your only concern?

Everyone got an equal say in choosing the govt. So there's that. (I'm certainly open to better ways to gauge the consent of the governed.)

But we all realize that doesn't protect a minority, which is where all the various constitutional protections are supposed to come in. Those are my concern too.

 

[durangodawood]

But that isn't the principle that you started us off with in this exchange.

It isnt?

Could be that my thinking has evolved over the course of this discussion. Or maybe its just that "equal consent of the governed" is a better formulation of the same basic principle than "one person one vote" I used earlier

 

[Resha Caner]

Everyone got an equal say in choosing the govt. So there's that. (I'm certainly open to better ways to gauge the consent of the governed.)

You're open to better ways to gauge the consent of the governed, but not better ways to govern?

FYI, not everyone gets an equal say. If you live in the U.S., but are not a citizen, you have no consent. If you are under 18, you have no consent. If you are a felon, you have no consent. That's how the caudillos handle it. If you don't like how people vote, convict them of a felony. Then, per the "axiom", all citizens in good standing still have consent. Poof - democracy.

But we all realize that doesn't protect a minority, which is where all the various constitutional protections are supposed to come in.

Axioms are not conditional.

You allow your position on gauging consent to be overruled under specific circumstances. How is it decided if not by the majority?

 

[Albion]

Let me put it this way...if equality between all voters/individuals is the objective when it comes to eliminating the Electoral College, then it seems unavoidable that removing ALL the demographic differences between them, not just the mechanism that was created for the Electoral College, has to be part of the proposal.

And if that is so, any regional distinction--such as you, durangodawood, said you were for in the case of the House--would logically also have to go. It would not matter that the districts were more or less equal in population. They are not equal in population, just close, within certain limits.

What's more, they cannot be made absolutely equal. And then, if the boundaries are geographical, which they must be, that makes some voters be rural and others urban or some white and some black, etc. simply because of which side of the state or district they live in.

This may sound like unnecessary nit-picking, but I am saying that if X is your big principle that justifies doing away with the Electoral College, it had better apply to all the other levels of our government...yet that is almost impossible to effect. And if that is so, maybe doing away with the Electoral College is an idea that really should be shelved.

 

[durangodawood]

You're open to better ways to gauge the consent of the governed, but not better ways to govern?

FYI, not everyone gets an equal say. If you live in the U.S., but are not a citizen, you have no consent. If you are under 18, you have no consent. If you are a felon, you have no consent. That's how the caudillos handle it. If you don't like how people vote, convict them of a felony. Then, per the "axiom", all citizens in good standing still have consent. Poof - democracy.

Axioms are not conditional.

You allow your position on gauging consent to be overruled under specific circumstances. How is it decided if not by the majority?

Of course I'm open to better ways to govern. But the topic is the electoral system: how govt is chosen.

There is no unconditional value axiom. This is human affairs, not math. Every one of them conflicts with other valid axiomatic values from time to time, and we have to sort it out. Thats life.

Not sure what youre asking in the last question.

I'd just ask:
Do you think equal consent of the governed is a basic political value?
Do you have a better way to gauge it than popular elections?

 

[durangodawood]

Let me put it this way...if equality between all voters/individuals is the objective when it comes to eliminating the Electoral College, then it seems unavoidable that removing ALL the demographic differences between them, not just the mechanism that was created for the Electoral College, has to be part of the proposal.

And if that is so, any regional distinction--such as you, durangodawood, said you were for in the case of the House--would logically also have to go. It would not matter that the districts were more or less equal in population. They are not equal in population, just close, within certain limits.

What's more, they cannot be made absolutely equal. And then, if the boundaries are geographical, which they must be, that makes some voters be rural and others urban or some white and some black, etc. simply because of which side of the state or district they live in.

This may sound like unnecessary nit-picking, but I am saying that if X is your big principle that justifies doing away with the Electoral College, it had better apply to all the other levels of our government...yet that is almost impossible to effect. And if that is so, maybe doing away with the Electoral College is an idea that really should be shelved.

It really is nit picky. In designing human systems we never get to perfect. Really-good is good enough if we cant figure out even-better.

Also, I am proposing the pres is elected by nationwide ballot, while its the house that retains regional representation. Access to govt is also a basic value, which is part of why having a regional representation matters.

 

[variant]

The Electoral College will be abolished the day after never. And quite rightly so.

The system didn’t break in 2016; it worked as it was intended to.

If we take the founders at their word it did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do, and has in fact never accomplished it's task in it's history.

Many states are doing an end run around the electoral college to pledge their delegates to the winner of the national vote, which will happen when the compact has 270 votes.

Colorado just joined up putting the number at 181 votes.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...its-electoral-votes-to-winner-of-popular-vote

 

[RDKirk]

No adult citizen's consent to be governed should count less than any others. EC Violates that.

Except it doesn't. At least less than not having it.

And repeating an untruth doesn't make it any less untrue.

 

[durangodawood]

Except it doesn't. At least less than not having it.

Oh but it does!

 

[thecolorsblend]

If we take the founders at their word it did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do, and has in fact never accomplished it's task in it's history.

Really? Because in the great majority of cases, the winner of the national popular vote is also the winner of the electoral vote. A disagreement between the two is historically quite rare.

Many states are doing an end run around the electoral college to pledge their delegates to the winner of the national vote, which will happen when the compact has 270 votes.

Nice compact you have there. Be a real shame if the Supreme Court struck it down.

I wonder why Democrats aren't attempting to amend the Constitution.

 

[variant]

Really? Because in the great majority of cases, the winner of the national popular vote is also the winner of the electoral vote. A disagreement between the two is historically quite rare.

There have only been a few. None of them has been the electoral college convening to keep the uninformed masses from electing a demagogue to office.

All we've accomplished is giving your vote an advantage if you happen to live out in the middle of nowhere.

It exists as an odd vestige of their wishes not functioning in any way shape or form as intended.

Nice compact you have there. Be a real shame if the Supreme Court struck it down.

I wonder why Democrats aren't attempting to amend the Constitution.

The states have full jurisdiction over the way their electoral ballots are cast. That is the system as it exists exactly.

A constitutional amendment would take 2/3rd state ratification which is never going to happen when 2/3rds of the states have a preferred position in the current scheme.

 

[durangodawood]

Really? Because in the great majority of cases, the winner of the national popular vote is also the winner of the electoral vote. A disagreement between the two is historically quite rare.....

Well a few poorly chosen presidents is a few too many.

But yeah, compared to the senate, youre right that the unjust effect doesnt often manifest.