President Lincoln was elected because of the Electoral College

[Resha Caner]

I wouldn't call you "childish", but I think your approach was ill-considered.

We've yet to see if that's the case.

Historians do precisely what you're asking for.

I have an M.A. in American History. But please, do tell me how it all works. It's like when Dawkins published "The Blind Watchmaker" right? That was a serious, academic treatment of evolution wasn't it? I mean, Dawkins was a legit biologist wasn't he? So all his books are tomes of biology.

Then you've seen me mess up at least four times when I acknowledged it. Most embarrassingly, when I wrote that metal has a higher specific heat than plastic.

Oh, the humanity! Why were you having this conversation about specific heat?

 

[The Barbarian]

I have an M.A. in American History. But please, do tell me how it all works.

Presidents are rated, depending on what they've accomplished or failed to accomplish. The cited article uses a number of polls, including historians of all political persuasions. Since you're an expert on history and all, which of those presidents do you think are above average?

And how is it you didn't know about all those countries that do (and did) have direct election of heads of state?

It's like when Dawkins published "The Blind Watchmaker" right?

Sorry, no bunny trails. Well, O.K. we'll let you have this one.

That was a serious, academic treatment of evolution wasn't it?

If you have an MA in history, you should know the difference between the academic literature, and a book written for laymen. A serious, academic treatment would be something like a journal article.

I mean, Dawkins was a legit biologist wasn't he?

There's no committee that declares a biologist "legit." Claude Shannon is considered a biologist, because his groundbreaking work on information was first applied to populations and he used biological systems to . Yet he had no degree in biology.
Claude Shannon: Biologist
The Founder of Information Theory Used Biology to Formulate the Channel Capacity
Claude Shannon: Biologist: The Founder of Information Theory Used Biology to Formulate the Channel Capacity

Shelby Foote is considered one of the great historians of the Civil War, but I don't believe he had a degree in history.

I have only 28 hours of history, (in the AF, I was stationed where the two available activities were drinking and taking university courses) but I can recall from memory two cases of something you denied ever happening from ancient and medieval history. So "legit" is perhaps a matter of opinion, um?

Dawkins, from my limited exposure to his scholarly writing, seems to be a capable biologist. I happen to disagree with him on the degree to which selection determines evolution, but it's at least an arguable point.

Haven't read much from his popular writing, other than a few cited pages. I have a copy of River Out of Eden, but never finished it. Would you consider Erwin Schrödinger a "legit biologist?" His essay What is Life? is considered a classic of biological literature, even though it was written for the layman. In it, his startling and accurate prediction that heredity would be found in "aperiodic crystals" turned out to be true long before the mechanism of genetics was known.

So all his books are tomes of biology.

The God Delusion, based on reviews, seems as though it isn't at all about biology. So, no.

(Barbarian admits he once wrote that metal has a higher specific heat than plastic)

Oh, the humanity! Why were you having this conversation about specific heat?

For a scientist, it would be almost as bad as an historian not being aware of the many nations in which the heads of state are/were directly elected by the voters. I don't remember the context. Somehow my brain mixed up conductivity and specific heat.

Meanwhile you do understand how historians rate presidents by their effectiveness, right?

 

[The Barbarian]

I find arguments against the electoral college a little troublesome. I mean, if the Pres. is popularly elected, it would essentially ensure that LA, NY, and Chicago always choose the President. It would seem to dilute the vote of less populous areas - essentially disenfranchising them. This isn't to say that the majority should be overlooked either, less the majority be subjected to a tyranny of the minority. The electoral college seems to strike some sort of balance between population and geography. The majority most often wins, but occasionally not so.

The fact that it only fails about once every seven times is somewhat reassuring, but the fact that when it fails we always get a mediocre to awful president does make it somewhat worse.

There is no reason a person from a sparsely populated area should have a vote that counts more than those from more densely populated areas. But that's what we sometimes get. The think is, direct election of a president would give liberals in Oklahoma and conservatives in California a reason to vote. Presently, their vote counts for nothing in a presidential election.

 

[Resha Caner]

Since you're an expert on history and all, which of those presidents do you think are above average?

Loaded question

And how is it you didn't know about all those countries that do (and did) have direct election of heads of state?

Improper conclusion

Meanwhile you do understand how historians rate presidents by their effectiveness, right?

You think it's part of a history curriculum to teach students how to rate people? Again, where is stuff like this coming from? Were we also taught how to rate which races are better? Which biologists are better? Yeah, that's what history is all about. We're just scriptwriters for WatchMojo videos.

If you have an MA in history, you should know the difference between the academic literature, and a book written for laymen. A serious, academic treatment would be something like a journal article.

The fact that you're voicing my point as if it's something you came up with to use against me simply confirms one of my suspicions about this conversation.

I don't remember the context.

Great example.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Assertion of special knowledge in history)

Barbarian suggests:
Since you're an expert on history and all, which of those presidents do you think are above average?

Loaded question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

I wouldn't want to have to answer that one, either, given your premise.

And how is it you didn't know about all those countries that do (and did) have direct election of heads of state?

Improper conclusion

You claimed it never happened. I showed you it's happened many times. You were apparently unaware of it, until I pointed it out.

Barbarian asks:
Meanwhile you do understand how historians rate presidents by their effectiveness, right?

You think it's part of a history curriculum to teach students how to rate people?

I notice the literature frequently rates historical leaders as effective or not so. So yes, unless you think historians are just making up things.

Again, where is stuff like this coming from? Were we also taught how to rate which races are better?

In more conservative times, yes we were. Because we now realize that there are no biological human races, that question is risible.

Which biologists are better?

Yep. Lamarck, for all his brilliance, failed to understand the causes of diversity in living things. So Darwin is rated higher than he is. McClintock, who finally unraveled the process of transposons, is considered a better biologist than those who opposed her. Stuff like that.

(asked if popular literature counts as serious scientific work)
If you have an MA in history, you should know the difference between the academic literature, and a book written for laymen. A serious, academic treatment would be something like a journal article.

The fact that you're voicing my point as if it's something you came up with to use against me

If you knew it was faulty, why did you bring up the subject, and ask me if it was true? That confirms one of my suspicions about this conversation.

 

[Resha Caner]

I notice the literature frequently rates historical leaders as effective or not so. So yes, unless you think historians are just making up things.

The way you transition your terms continues to fascinate me - even moreso because I get the impression you're completely unaware you're doing it.

And how is it you didn't know about all those countries that do (and did) have direct election of heads of state?

This kind of thing is interesting (or should I say amusing) as well - the repetition of an unfounded accusation that resulted primarily from a misunderstanding whereupon, if the conversant ever engages, your standard reply is, "Nope, no bunny trails."

I'd love to detail a few things about language, but ... these conversations ... they just produce sigh after sigh.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The fact that it only fails about once every seven times is somewhat reassuring,

It seems to me it's working as designed - so it's not failing.

but the fact that when it fails we always get a mediocre to awful president does make it somewhat worse.

I don't know why this should be a criteria for doing away with the electoral college. What one person considers mediocre another may not. And who's to say direct majority elections won't produce "mediocrity," however such a thing is to be defined?

There is no reason a person from a sparsely populated area should have a vote that counts more than those from more densely populated areas. But that's what we sometimes get. The think is, direct election of a president would give liberals in Oklahoma and conservatives in California a reason to vote. Presently, their vote counts for nothing in a presidential election.

I think there is a good argument to be made that geographical dispersion results in populations having different values and interests. If the President were elected by simple majority, the people in large population areas would essentially be choosing the President. This would disenfranchise other geographical areas whose values and interests didn't necessarily align. As it is right now, those areas have to be persuaded by one side or the other.

And I doubt that direct election would give anyone in rural Oklahoma more of a reason to vote. The vote would go the way of LA, NY, and Chicago regardless of how anyone in OK voted. I also doubt their vote counts for nothing as it is currently. Their vote counts more because these geographically dispersed areas have some degree of sway and pull and so their populations must be addressed and persuaded. In your system they can be ignored.

I'm also suspect of designing a system based on current partisan interests. Political parties come and go. What Democrats and Republicans believe today they may not believe tomorrow. Deigning a system around current partisan politics seems a serious mistake in foresight. Though liberals today in OK may be ok doing away with the electoral college, since they agree with the liberals in the more populous areas, liberals tomorrow in OK may have different values and interest than those in high density population areas. Deferring their interests to people in other regions seems like a serious error in foresight and risk management.

We could also use the same argument against the electoral college to just do away with the Senate. Why have the Senate if majority opinion should rule the day? Why should Kansas' representation in a legislative body be equal to California or New York?

Ending the electoral college seems to be in the interests of the high density population areas and not in the interests of less density population areas. This would favor those high density areas at the expense of representation of less populous geographic areas. And it seems clear that this is the goal of doing away with the electoral college - to take power and representation away from those regions. Since simple majority rule is the principle preferred, they should never have any real representation of their interests and values in the Executive or Legislative bodies.

If one were to disenfranchise those areas, why should they even stay in a federal union of states? What possible reason would they have to stay in the union if they are to just be ruled by big coastal metro areas?

Though I wouldn't say this is happening now, there could be a risk of big coastal areas exploiting other less populated geographic areas should simple majority become the rule. There certainly wouldn't be anything to legally prevent it, and it would be in their interests to do so. Simply majority wouldn't sufficiently ensure the rights of the minority - and this should be one of the, if not the chief purpose of government. Should such an exploitation risk be realized, then the minority would have no other option than to withdraw from the union.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian is asked if historians are trained in evaluating the effectiveness of leaders)
I notice the literature frequently rates historical leaders as effective or not so. So yes, unless you think historians are just making up things.

The way you transition your terms continues to fascinate me - even moreso because I get the impression you're completely unaware you're doing it.

You asked the question, and I answered it rather directly, with supporting information. Would you like me to show you some examples from the literature?

Barbarian asks:
And how is it you didn't know about all those countries that do (and did) have direct election of heads of state?

This kind of thing is interesting (or should I say amusing) as well - the repetition of an unfounded accusation that resulted primarily from a misunderstanding

You pretty directly denied it:
I said:
In a free country, the leader is picked by the people, not by political units or officials.

You replied:

Dream on. No such place has ever existed.

And I gave you numerous examples where it has, and does. How, exactly did you misunderstand this?

 

[The Barbarian]

It seems to me it's working as designed - so it's not failing.

It was designed to let the people elect a president. In five cases, they didn't. A minority happened to chose the president.

(Barbarian notes the presidents so elected when the system failed have ranged from mediocre to terrible)

I don't know why this should be a criteria for doing away with the electoral college.

I don't know of a better demonstration of the collective wisdom of the American people.

What one person considers mediocre another may not.

As you see, no one in their right mind would call any of those, great presidents.

And who's to say direct majority elections won't produce "mediocrity," however such a thing is to be defined?

They can, and do. On the other hand, notice that when the system failed to elect the choice of the American people, the results haven't been very good.

I think there is a good argument to be made that geographical dispersion results in populations having different values and interests.

And those should be represented according to their numbers. However, the present practice means that anyone not fitting into that culture, effectively has no say in the election of a president. If 51% of a state goes for a democrat, then 49% of the voters lost their say in the election. This is alright to those of the collectivist persuasion who suppose that states have rights over and above those of individuals.

Which is bad political theory, but worse, it tends to strengthen the most radical elements in our nation at the expense of more moderate voices.

If the President were elected by simple majority, the people in large population areas would essentially be choosing the President.

That's what happens most of the time. It was so intended. The point is that sometimes, the system doesn't work, and the candidate getting the most votes loses. And a republican in California loses any say at all in who becomes president. As I said, those of a collectivist persuasion don't have a problem with this, seeing the state having greater rights than the individual.

And I doubt that direct election would give anyone in rural Oklahoma more of a reason to vote.

If he was a democrat, it would. Likewise for a republican in Connecticut.

The vote would go the way of LA, NY, and Chicago

Or of Texas, and a host of smaller states, in other years. Depends on who's running.

I'm also suspect of designing a system based on current partisan interests.

That's what we have currently. Scientific Gerrymandering has made more and more safe districts for the politicians who don't want the ordinary voter to have a say. And that makes for an increasingly divided and radicalized population.

Direct election and a prohibition of Gerrymandering would result in more competitive elections and less political division.

Political parties come and go. What Democrats and Republicans believe today they may not believe tomorrow.

Yep. In few years, demographic changes are going to favor democrats. Unless something very strange happens, they'll start rigging elections the way the republicans have been doing it. We need to put a stop to it.

Deigning a system around current partisan politics seems a serious mistake in foresight.

It was. I'm pointing out that it's increasingly dangerous to continue doing so.