Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

Qazaq, what most of us are taking issue with is that you seem to be so wrapped up in the intent behind an action that you seem either unable or unwilling to consider if there are merits to the proposal (because you keep seemingly trying to say that both sides are equally valid interpretations). It seems that all you care about is intent.

But that's the point. I could point out a ton of fantasy scenarios about how the country becomes very sympathetic to farmers and suddenly rural voices are closer to the so called "median" voter. But what's the point when we know that the country is becoming more urban, thus more voters being brought up and living in heavily democratic strongholds, and thus that "kind of person" ultimately having more influence on the outcome?

And everyone goes "well, yeah, so? if that's the changing nature of this country than so be it?"

And I'm saying, that's ALREADY the changing nature of this country ANYWAY.

And we are saying there is granularity to things. That the nature of the government is not changing proportional to the change in the country. Its not just about direction, but magnitude

 

[Gotchaye]

What are you using to judge that NYC would become more moderate? How do we know that the increased voting patterns would not lead to more Democrats voting as opposed to more GOP? You're using a lot of "ifs" here.

If we're talking about this again, I want to reiterate that you can't assume that states' voting laws remain the same under a NPV system. Why would they? Obviously many states now set up their voting laws in ways that the party in power in the state thinks will advantage their candidates for national office.

The NPV pact very much advantages Democrats because it suddenly gives states an enormous incentive to encourage voting.

One would expect strongly red or blue states to strongly incentivize voting, and perhaps even to make it mandatory. Campaigning in NYC might not be the best idea, just because there's no gain in trying to increase turnout - it would already be very high. Campaigning would be about persuading definite voters to vote for you rather than the other guy or a write-in. Areas with lots of independents or people on the fringe who might vote third party would be the preferred campaign stops.

There are ways around this, but you'd have to tear down the NPV movement and start over, promising instead, not to count everyone's vote the same, but to count everyone's votes in inverse proportion to the fraction of their state which also votes (which is a harder sell, I think).

 

[The Librarian]

Gee, because it's common sense and because it's been argued about for pages now?

I'm not really following along, so answer me this: Why does switching to NPV give Democrats an advantage?

If we're talking about this again, I want to reiterate that you can't assume that states' voting laws remain the same under a NPV system. Why would they? Obviously many states now set up their voting laws in ways that the party in power in the state thinks will advantage their candidates for national office.

The NPV pact very much advantages Democrats because it suddenly gives states an enormous incentive to encourage voting.

One would expect strongly red or blue states to strongly incentivize voting, and perhaps even to make it mandatory. Campaigning in NYC might not be the best idea, just because there's no gain in trying to increase turnout - it would already be very high. Campaigning would be about persuading definite voters to vote for you rather than the other guy or a write-in. Areas with lots of independents or people on the fringe who might vote third party would be the preferred campaign stops.

There are ways around this, but you'd have to tear down the NPV movement and start over, promising instead, not to count everyone's vote the same, but to count everyone's votes in inverse proportion to the fraction of their state which also votes (which is a harder sell, I think).

That's a good point.

 

[Qazaq]

Qazaq, what most of us are taking issue with is that you seem to be so wrapped up in the intent behind an action that you seem either unable or unwilling to consider if there are merits to the proposal (because you keep seemingly trying to say that both sides are equally valid interpretations). It seems that all you care about is intent.

I recognize that you guys are saying that. I do.

What I wish everyone ELSE would recognize is that, as demonstrated by the damn thread, you can go on for infinity about this stuff.

You want to consider a million contexts for this infinite question of the merits behind this way of counting democracy and fairness and urban and rural interests and such? Great, we've already been doing so.

But at the end of the day, the more weight you place on sheer turnout in a country that is becoming more and more urban, the more the party that caters to that is obviously going to benefit. It's not rocket science.

And the current EC system IS ALREADY CATERING TO THAT REALITY. In a perfect, flaw-free way? No. But CHANGING THE SYSTEM TO THAT it will FAVOR the Democrats SYSTEMATICALLY.

 

[tranciful]

What are you using to judge that NYC would become more moderate? How do we know that the increased voting patterns would not lead to more Democrats voting as opposed to more GOP? You're using a lot of "ifs" here.

I figure 'more attention from campaigns' + the idea that 'my minority vote matters' = people pay more attention to politics and debate with their peers = generally more moderate results. That's the feeling I get living in Texas -- that it'd shift more to the left toward a moderate populace. Not saying it'd flip overnight or even flip at all.

 

[The Technomancer]

But at the end of the day, the more weight you place on sheer turnout in a country that is becoming more and more urban, the more the party that caters to that is obviously going to benefit. It's not rocket science.

And why is that a bad thing? Objectively. I realize why those who vote Republican direction find it a bad thing, they want more influence. I realize why those who vote Democrat find it a good thing, they also want more influence. Is your argument that it is actually impossible to consider this as a potential course of action through a lens that doesn't care about either party? That we can't say something would be good for the country, we have to talk about how it would benefit one party?

If one party is being marginalized because they don't appeal to the increasingly large demographic, doesn't that mean that the onus is on the party to change? Or is this another thing where you're going to say "opinion X, opinion Y, both equally valid, no way to talk about which is more or less representative"?

 

[Qazaq]

Obviously many states now set up their voting laws in ways that the party in power in the state thinks will advantage their candidates for national office.

This is an excellent point, and is an example of how at the end of the day, while genuine principal might be mixed in, ultimately, people on the whole tend to want to make sure the system is set up to help their party, primarily.


I mean we see that up and down in numerous examples about how different cities have a turnout machine, Massachussetts changing the way replacement senators are picked, etc. etc.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Filibuster deal? Seems so.

Senators may be nearing an end to their partisan dispute over curbing unlimited delays called filibusters.
Whatever the resolution, it probably won't require filibustering senators to debate on the Senate floor until exhaustion, like the actor Jimmy Stewart did in the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
Senate aides say lawmakers could compromise as soon as Thursday on modest limits on filibusters, which a party in the minority uses to kill legislation. If no deal is reached, Democrats may push a package of changes that would place mild restraints on the practice.
Some newer Democratic senators want to require filibustering lawmakers to talk continuously as Stewart did in the 1939 film. But No. 2 Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin says Democrats lack the votes for that aggressive change.
Politico reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are close to reaching a scaled-down deal. According to the report, Reid's proposal to McConnell does not require 41 votes to maintain a filibuster, which would shift the burden on to the minority. Under current rules, the majority must get 60 votes to end a filibuster.
"That was never a real possibility for the McConnell talks," a Senate Democratic aide told The Huffington Post of the 41-vote threshold. If talks between Reid and McConnell breakdown, shifting the onus onto the minority would be a central part of the package Democrats attempt to push through with 51 votes on the Senate floor.
The aide continued: "We [will be] a more efficient Senate; we'll be able to get on bills without having 60 votes and without having to spend a week to do it. We are getting the ability to confirm certain nominees who have objections against them. Instead of taking a week to confirm them, it'll take a few hours ... That's all Reid ever really wanted."

 

[Qazaq]

And why is that a bad thing? Objectively. I realize why those who vote Republican direction find it a bad thing, they want more influence. I realize why those who vote Democrat find it a good thing, they also want more influence. Is your argument that it is actually impossible to consider this as a potential course of action through a lens that doesn't care about either party? That we can't say something would be good for the country, we have to talk about how it would benefit one party?

Because that is the "let's go down the rabbit hole reasoning" I keep trying to say.

If you want to have a debate about how our voting should represent urban voters more than it currently does, go for it!

But at the end of the day, the VA Republicans are proposing a system change that values RURAL voters. That's all. We just find it outrageous because we know it benefits the GOP -- because THAT at the end of the day is what is newsworthy about it at this current time -- not the debate about urban vs. rural interests.

 

[Qazaq]

"Politico reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are close to reaching a scaled-down deal. According to the report, Reid's proposal to McConnell does not require 41 votes to maintain a filibuster, which would shift the burden on to the minority. Under current rules, the majority must get 60 votes to end a filibuster."


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. UGH.

I thought the 41 vote threshold was a GREAT idea.

 

[The Technomancer]

Because that is the "let's go down the rabbit hole reasoning" I keep trying to say.

If you want to have a debate about how our voting should represent urban voters more than it currently does, go for it!

But at the end of the day, the VA Republicans are proposing a system change that values RURAL voters. That's all. We just find it outrageous because we know it benefits the GOP -- because THAT at the end of the day is what is newsworthy about it at this current time -- not the debate about urban vs. rural interests.

NO. We find it outrageous because it gives disproportionate influence to groups (in this case, rural voters). That is what we are saying

 

[tranciful]

Areas with lots of independents or people on the fringe who might vote third party would be the preferred campaign stops.

Population density being equal, this is true. But population density will definitely play into it. Doesn't matter what proportion of an area's citizens are swing voters -- you just want to reach the largest number of swing voters per stop. NYC will have more swing voters than the entire populations of smaller towns.

Edit: I should reiterate that my larger point is that population centers definitely matter more in a NPV system than they do now. I'd imagine NYC (for GOP) and DFW (for dems) would be good targets for making up ground early in the switch, but I'm completely open to the idea that those aren't the absolute best campaign stops imaginable.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Because that is the "let's go down the rabbit hole reasoning" I keep trying to say.

If you want to have a debate about how our voting should represent urban voters more than it currently does, go for it!

But at the end of the day, the VA Republicans are proposing a system change that values RURAL voters. That's all. We just find it outrageous because we know it benefits the GOP -- because THAT at the end of the day is what is newsworthy about it at this current time -- not the debate about urban vs. rural interests.

It doesn't value RURAL voters, it values LESS voters MORE.

 

[Magni]

NO. We find it outrageous because it gives disproportionate influence to rural voters. That is what we are saying

Thank you Technomancer.

Qazaq doesn't seem to comprehend that the Republicans trying to get an advantage by giving some voters more weight is NOT equivalent to the Democrats trying to get an advantage by having politics in line with the majority of the country.

If Democrats were trying to make urban votes worth more than rural votes, you'd have a point Qazaq. But the thing is, that's not what they're trying to do.

 

[Qazaq]

NO. We find it outrageous because it gives disproportionate influence to rural voters. That is what we are saying

But again, it all boils down to everyone's semantics.

You say it's disproportionate, subtext being "unfair".

The electoral college is ALREADY proportional. According to population. You just happen to find THAT PROPORTION "unfair".

So you recognize that the VA Republicans are giving more weight to rural interests -- and you find that unfair.

And you recognize that the NPV gives less weight to rural interests -- and you see how certain people would find that unfair.

Thus, it goes back to what I'm saying: distilled down to the absolute heart, all we can do is put the systems on an axis.

"Urban/Democrat/Big"
+2 Jungal primaries for everything, anything you can think of, etc., we can keep going
+1 NPV for President
0 is the electoral college. It's where we are now.
-1 districts, aka the VA Republicans plan
-2 something like the New Hampshire House
"Rural/Republican/Small"

I'm literally talking about nothing else except the NPV moves the notch towards the Urban/Democrat/Big direction.

Qazaq doesn't seem to comprehend that the Republicans trying to get an advantage by giving some voters more weight is NOT equivalent to the Democrats trying to get an advantage by having politics in line with the majority of the country.

If Democrats were trying to make urban votes worth more than rural votes, you'd have a point Qazaq. But the thing is, that's not what they're trying to do.

But that's what it DOES DO. In reality, in genuine practically, that IS WHAT IT DOES.

You can't vouch for the NPV while ignoring that it does this. By putting rural voters at the exact equal of urban voters, you by definition allow the urban voters to drown them out. In this country, you are.

HENCE THE BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE HENCE THE BLACK HOLE HENCE WHY I'M DONE ARGUING THIS

 

[Gotchaye]

Population density being equal, this is true. But population density will definitely play into it. Doesn't matter what proportion of an area's citizens are swing voters -- you just want to reach the largest number of swing voters per stop. NYC will have more swing voters than the entire populations of smaller towns.

Ish. It depends how much of an impact you're likely to have on the swing voters per stop. Obama would have had a hard time doing an event in NYC where he appealed to moderates there; the event would have been packed with supporters and most moderates would have been aware of it only as the reason it took them twice as long to drive anywhere that day. Romney's events would have been constantly disrupted by Occupy folks. It's easier to find the moderates in order to appeal to them in places where a higher fraction of the population is moderate.

I'm sure there's some impact merely from being in the same area and speaking on local issues and having that reported in the local news, but I still doubt it makes much sense for Republicans to spend much time in NYC. Democrats, sure, but there the whole point is to persuade Occupy types not to vote Green.

To your edit: absolutely, early on, before turnout skyrockets, it's going to be all about major population centers. But I imagine that the long-term best strategy is simply to try to get favorable mass media coverage broadcast all over the country. It makes sense to spend a lot of time talking about issues that only Floridians care about now, but under NPV it doesn't necessarily make much sense to spend a lot of time talking about issues that only NYC residents care about. There's a much larger opportunity cost to doing so, which is that you're not spending that time appealing to the entire rest of the country (whereas now it's only that you're not appealing to the other swing states, /and/ the swing states are winner-take-all). A 2% gain in NYC is not worth passing up a .1% gain nationwide, so while you might spend time in NYC, you're going to be talking about things of interest to everyone, and you definitely want to avoid looking like a regional candidate.

 

[The Technomancer]

But again, it all boils down to everyone's semantics.

You say it's disproportionate, subtext being "unfair".

The electoral college is ALREADY proportional. According to population. You just happen to find THAT PROPORTION "unfair".

So you recognize that the VA Republicans are giving more weight to rural interests -- and you find that unfair.

And you recognize that the NPV gives less weight to rural interests -- and you see how certain people would find that unfair.

No. I don't. Not from any objective standpoint. Its only undesirable if someone is aware of their currently disproportionate influence and want to keep it. Or are you arguing that there is a coherent argument for disproportional influence, in fact, being fair? Because I would love to hear it. Because so far you just keep saying "Opinion X, Opinion Y, both valid, both worthy of consideration".

So I really want to hear how, acknowledging that the current system is not as proportional as a direct voting system because its resolution is greater, is as fair or more fair than a direct system. Unless you try to argue that the district system is more proportional than a direct vote system, but I think you've acknowledged that direct is more proportional already.

 

[remist]

Or are you arguing that there is a coherent argument for disproportional influence, in fact, being fair?

He is in fact arguing that.

 

[Opiate]

Qazaq is making an observation. Whether it's a good thing or not, whether it's fair and just or not, it is objectively true that a national popular vote system will favor whatever party appeals most to urban voters, since urban populations are growing rapidly.

On the flipside, Qazaq, I do think your posts sometimes overstepped this basic point. Your language choice and perceived tone definitely implied on several occasions that a national popular vote isn't fair, in your opinion. That's a different argument: observing that a national popular vote benefits Democrats is a different position than arguing that it's unfair or unreasonable. Your repeated defense of rural voters suggests that you think this system disenfranchises them in an unfair way.

If you did not mean to imply that, then you can simply state as such and the argument is over. However, if you do think it's unfair, then of course that's precisely what the other posters have been arguing against and that is the point you should be addressing -- not the simple, fairly uncontroversial observation about urban voters.

 

[Qazaq]

No. I don't. Not from any objective standpoint.

There IS NO OBJECTIVE STANDPOINT!

That's the POINT. It's about people allocating power in a way that MOST BENEFITS their interests.

A region of farmers in Kansas or Utah has DIFFERENT IDEAS about what constitutes "fair", "democracy", and "proportional" with respect to his or her voice, and those are ideas that can still fit within the framework of this country's democracy.

 

[tranciful]

Ish. It depends how much of an impact you're likely to have on the swing voters per stop. Obama would have had a hard time doing an event in NYC where he appealed to moderates there; the event would have been packed with supporters and most moderates would have been aware of it only as the reason it took them twice as long to drive anywhere that day. Romney's events would have been constantly disrupted by Occupy folks. It's easier to find the moderates in order to appeal to them in places where a higher fraction of the population is moderate.

I'm sure there's some impact merely from being in the same area and speaking on local issues and having that reported in the local news, but I still doubt it makes much sense for Republicans to spend much time in NYC. Democrats, sure, but there the whole point is to persuade Occupy types not to vote Green.

NY had a republican gov for over a decade until 2006, NJ has republican gov, Dallas has a dem mayor. I have a feeling it's not as hyper-partisan a the winner take all system makes it seem. Obama won over 40% of the vote in Texas. That'd matter in a NPV system.

to your edit: absolutely, early on, before turnout skyrockets, it's going to be all about major population centers. But I imagine that the long-term best strategy is simply to try to get favorable mass media coverage broadcast all over the country. It makes sense to spend a lot of time talking about issues that only Floridians care about now, but under NPV it doesn't necessarily make much sense to spend a lot of time talking about issues that only NYC residents care about. There's a much larger opportunity cost to doing so, which is that you're not spending that time appealing to the entire rest of the country (whereas now it's only that you're not appealing to the other swing states, /and/ the swing states are winner-take-all). A 2% gain in NYC is not worth passing up a .1% gain nationwide, so while you might spend time in NYC, you're going to be talking about things of interest to everyone, and you definitely want to avoid looking like a regional candidate.

I definitely agree with you and that strategy would generally shift from individual states to broader outreach, but I'd imagine they're still going to be choosing places to land their plane

 

[The Technomancer]

There IS NO OBJECTIVE STANDPOINT!

That's the POINT. It's about people allocating power in a way that MOST BENEFITS their interests.

A region of farmers in Kansas or Utah has DIFFERENT IDEAS about what constitutes "fair", "democracy", and "proportional" with respect to his or her voice, and those are ideas that can still fit within the framework of this country's democracy.

Than present an argument! Why should a vote from rural Kansas count for more than a vote from urban Kansas? It is not enough to simply say the opinion exists, and therefore has intrinsic merit

 

[empty vessel]

The one argument I can think of in favor of the district system is that it can compensate for large differences in voter turnout by treating those who do vote as a "representative sample" of the area, and weighting that area's influence on the election accordingly. Which isn't, to me, enough of a good reason to keep a system that allows for bullshit like gerrymandering.

There isn't anything more inherently wrong with awarding electoral votes based on congressional House districts than there is awarding them based on state-wide districts, provided one is okay with a system that is not a direct republican democracy (as ours historically hasn't been). The problem is (as you correctly say) the gerrymandering and the failure to adhere to the principle of one person one vote.

Also, given that congressional House representation has failed to keep pace with population growth, a system that adhered to a strict one person one vote principle without gerrymandering ought also to greatly increase the number of representatives (districts).

Qazaq is making an observation. Whether it's a good thing or not, whether it's fair and just or not, it is objectively true that a national popular vote system will favor whatever party appeals most to urban voters, since urban populations are growing rapidly.

On the flipside, Qazaq, I do think your posts sometimes overstepped this basic point. Your language choice and perceived tone definitely implied on several occasions that a national popular vote isn't fair, in your opinion. That's a different argument: observing that a national popular vote benefits Democrats is a different position than arguing that it's unfair or unreasonable. Your repeated defense of rural voters suggests that you think this system disenfranchises them in an unfair way.

If you did not mean to imply that, then you can simply state as such and the argument is over. However, if you do think it's unfair, then of course that's precisely what the other posters have been arguing against and that is the point you should be addressing -- not the simple, fairly uncontroversial observation about urban voters.

As far as I can tell, he is simply opposed to a direct republican democracy (at least for the office of president). Ironically, his reason for being opposed to it is strictly partisan, i.e., he is doing what he accuses everybody else of doing. Par for the Republican course.

 

[Opiate]

There IS NO OBJECTIVE STANDPOINT!

Of course there is. Reasonable people can reasonably agree on what is just, and economists and other scientists can speak to what systems will help foster a more efficient, healthy governmental system.

The suggestion that "fairness" and "justice" are completely subjective views and that anyone's opinion is as valid as anyone else's is absurd. For example, a person who thinks it's "fair" for only Hispanic people to have a vote does not have an equally valid point of view. His viewpoint is objectively poor, and reasonable arguments can be put forth to explain why.

That's the POINT. It's about people allocating power in a way that MOST BENEFITS their interests.

I am not interested in allocating power to what benefits my own interests. I am interested in creating a system that is objectively fair and just, whether it happens to benefit me or not. This does not mean I am necessarily for a national popular vote, mind you.

The implication, here, is that none of us care about what is objectively fair and just, and are only looking to further our own interests. That is simply not the case: many people really do want an objectively fair system.

Than present an argument! Why should a vote from rural Kansas count for more than a vote from urban Kansas? It is not enough to simply say the opinion exists, and therefore has intrinsic merit

He seems to be implying that no standpoint is better than another. It's postmodernism applied in a very unique way.

 

[Magni]

But again, it all boils down to everyone's semantics.

You say it's disproportionate, subtext being "unfair".

The electoral college is ALREADY proportional. According to population. You just happen to find THAT PROPORTION "unfair".

So you recognize that the VA Republicans are giving more weight to rural interests -- and you find that unfair.

And you recognize that the NPV gives less weight to rural interests -- and you see how certain people would find that unfair.

Thus, it goes back to what I'm saying: distilled down to the absolute heart, all we can do is put the systems on an axis.

"Urban/Democrat/Big"
+2 Jungal primaries for everything, anything you can think of, etc., we can keep going
+1 NPV for President
0 is the electoral college. It's where we are now.
-1 districts, aka the VA Republicans plan
-2 something like the New Hampshire House
"Rural/Republican/Small"

I'm literally talking about nothing else except the NPV moves the notch towards the Urban/Democrat/Big direction.



But that's what it DOES DO. In reality, in genuine practically, that IS WHAT IT DOES.

You can't vouch for the NPV while ignoring that it does this. By putting rural voters at the exact equal of urban voters, you by definition allow the urban voters to drown them out. In this country, you are.

HENCE THE BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE HENCE THE BLACK HOLE HENCE WHY I'M DONE ARGUING THIS

Are all urban voters the same? Do rural voters never vote for Democrats and urban voters never for Republicans? And what about suburbans in all of this?

The Senate is significantly weighed towards rural voters.
The House is also weighed, albeit less than the Senate, towards rural voters.
Why should the White House also be weighed towards them?

I don't understand how it's fair for urban voters to have their votes count less just because there's more of them.

 

[Qazaq]

Qazaq is making an observation. Whether it's a good thing or not, whether it's fair and just or not, it is objectively true that a national popular vote system will favor whatever party appeals most to urban voters, since urban populations are growing rapidly.

On the flipside, Qazaq, I do think your posts sometimes overstepped this basic point. Your language choice and perceived tone definitely implied on several occasions that a national popular vote isn't fair, in your opinion. That's a different argument: observing that a national popular vote benefits Democrats is a different position than arguing that it's unfair or unreasonable. Your repeated defense of rural voters suggests that you think this system disenfranchises them in an unfair way.

If you did not mean to imply that, then you can simply state as such and the argument is over. However, if you do think it's unfair, then of course that's precisely what the other posters have been arguing against and that is the point you should be addressing -- not the simple, fairly uncontroversial observation about urban voters.

Thank you for being so reasonable.

It is tricky, because it's really two things with me:

1) My argument that the NPV does indeed favor the Democrats systematically; that I don't find it remotely unreasonable to say it's basically an inverse of what the Republicans are doing to change the system to benefit them.

2) We are having this debate instead of making this observation as is, because since I'm being pressed, I DO happen to find the electoral college the "best" system to use right now. And that when I say "best", I mean best in that "nobody really likes it, it's not perfect, but it's the best thing we've got to a level playing field" -- and I think that both parties have tried to change it speaks to that. People want to talk about "fair" and "genuine" -- and you may genuinely believe the changes to the system are more fair and genuine than the other. But you absolutely cannot ignore the political power aspect of it. You can't. ALL of this is politics.

That's why I get frustrated when people act as if "fair" matters as some sort of grand macrocosmic ideal. That's fine. I don't really care what you think is "fair". I don't think suppressing voters through voter ID laws is fair. It riles me up and I find it disgusting.

But I can have those genuine feelings with genuine principal behind it while also recognizing that I know that the more people vote, the better Democrats do, and that I want that.

Look at the Sandy Aid relief vote. All of this is politics. Giving aid to certain countries IS POLITICAL. OF COURSE it's moral to help the Northeast. I live in New Jersey. Did I expect the nation's republicans would so explicitly play politics quite as openly as they did? No. But ALL of it is politics.

Why am I talking about Sandy Aid relief? Because it's such a great example of how such an obvious moral thing to do was complicated by the realization that you can NEVER forget the political implications of this.

And that I find it absurd that when people are debating the merits of changing the way via which we elect presidents, that people are really suggesting that their own personal definition of "moral" and "fair" matters oh-so-much-more than the obvious factor being THAT IT HELPS THEM OUT POLITICALLY.

 

[Magni]

And that I find it absurd that when people are debating the merits of changing the way via which we elect presidents, that people are really suggesting that their own personal definition of "moral" and "fair" matters oh-so-much-more than the obvious factor being THAT IT HELPS THEM OUT POLITICALLY.

The EC being the system in place last November sure saved me a lot of stress.

Also, you keep talking about rural voters being disenfranchised by switching to NPV. Do you have any idea how disenfranchised the rural voters I know in upstate NY feel right now thanks to the EC?

 

[pigeon]

He seems to be implying that no standpoint is better than another. It's postmodernism applied in a very unique way.

That's not unique, it's just nihilism. Political nihilism is actually pretty common -- I mean, it's the inferred belief structure of most politicians -- but it's also hard to really engage with, since, fundamental meaninglessness of existence.

 

[The Technomancer]

1) My argument that the NPV does indeed favor the Democrats systematically; that I don't find it remotely unreasonable to say it's basically an inverse of what the Republicans are doing to change the system to benefit them.

It is unreasonable, saying that its the inverse (among other things you've posted) implies that you believe both changes are unfair in opposite directions.
Like Opiate says, not all opinions on fairness intrinsically have equal worth. Do you believe that they do, and that all opinions on fairness deserve equal consideration? Because honestly? That is the primary point of contention that many of us have with you.

 

[Qazaq]

There isn't anything more inherently wrong with awarding electoral votes based on congressional House districts than there is awarding them based on state-wide districts, provided one is okay with a system that is not a direct republican democracy (as ours historically hasn't been). The problem is (as you correctly say) the gerrymandering and the failure to adhere to the principle of one person one vote.

Absolutely. I do absolutely think the gerrymandering of it is as close to "unfair" as you can really make with this, and why it has a chance of being struck down as unconstitutional.

But if you somehow took out the ability of the legislature to draw its districts, then there's really nothing more inherently wrong with doing it that way than another way.

As far as I can tell, he is simply opposed to a direct republican democracy (at least for the office of president).

I'm not opposed to direct democracy, I'm just aware of the complications of tyranny of the majority, and that even though the current system has flaws, I don't really understand why these flaws are so horrible that the partisan advantage of changing it outweighs those.

The suggestion that "fairness" and "justice" are completely subjective views and that anyone's opinion is as valid as anyone else's is absurd.

Then forgive me for not putting the asterisk *in relative accordance with what we all accept as being within the realm of reason.

I'm not about giving every idea equal merit.

ONE of the benefits of the EC is that we've been doing it for so long. In my mind, changing it to districts disrupts the status quo to benefit the republicans -- but I don't see how those changes are so much more radical rightward than the NPV is a change to the left.

I am not interested in allocating power to what benefits my own interests. I am creating a system that is objectively fair and just, whether it happens to benefit me or not.

But that's not how professional politicians act. It's not black and white. It's not all morals, fairness, and just, just as much as it is not ALL cold blooded politics and power. It is ALWAYS a mix, and people elected to represent interests cannot be expected to completely ignore that in fair of what some people perceive as "just".

Just look at any gay marriage debate in the state legislatures.

The House is also weighed, albeit less than the Senate, towards rural voters.

I mean, you may think that, but erm, it's not.

 

[Gotchaye]

NY had a republican gov for over a decade until 2006, NJ has republican gov, Dallas has a dem mayor. I have a feeling it's not as hyper-partisan a the winner take all system makes it seem. Obama won over 40% of the vote in Texas. That'd matter in a NPV system.

And Romney was the governor of Massachusetts. But he was fairly liberal for a Republican at the time; Rick Perry would never have been able to win an election there. I'm not denying that there are substantial numbers of Republicans in NYC or substantial numbers of Democrats in Texas (I'm one), but I do think that either candidate would have had some big problems trying to campaign in NYC, and I think that if you assume high turnout it's going to make a lot of sense for candidates to spend time in places where moderates are a higher fraction of the population. But I hope they would spend some time in NYC - it's not an insignificant fraction of the total population.

I definitely agree with you and that strategy would generally shift from individual states to broader outreach, but I'd imagine they're still going to be choosing places to land their plane

There are diminishing returns to this, though. NYC may be too dense - you can't do a campaign stop and then drive for 30 minutes and do another, since you're just going to be two blocks away from where you started and you're going to attract a crowd of supporters that you're not interested in persuading who are following you around. Yeah, rural Iowa isn't going to get much love in an NPV system, but I imagine that the return on campaigning is similar for most places of not-insignificant size. It's not like only the big cities in swing states get campaigned in as-is (although presumably things would shift at least a little more towards cities to the extent that swing state cities are saturated currently).

 

[zero shift]

But the Vietnam war didn't even achieve that, I don't want to play the grim math game and guess the Vietnamese death toll in a hypothetical, but I'm pretty damn sure 58,220 Americans would've have not died in the jungles of Indochina.
I know there at times there is an urge, usually in chicken hawks who never been to war, to "do something", but if your actions isn't improving the situation, there is no point in doing it (see also - the war in Afghanistan).

And that's without getting into the moral minefield which is self determination.

In hindsight the war was a mistake, but at the time it seemed very sensible. They didn't know whether Communism would spread to the surrounding nations, it did, or just how bad it would be if the Communist party was victorious. If the American troops could save up to 1 million people from dying due to a tyranical regime. All the people that died during the Vietnam war is very small compared to those that perished due to the Vietnemese, Cambodian, and Laothian governments.

 

[Opiate]

Thank you for being so reasonable.

It is tricky, because it's really two things with me:

1) My argument that the NPV does indeed favor the Democrats systematically; that I don't find it remotely unreasonable to say it's basically an inverse of what the Republicans are doing to change the system to benefit them.

2) We are having this debate instead of making this observation as is, because since I'm being pressed, I DO happen to find the electoral college the "best" system to use right now. And that when I say "best", I mean best in that "nobody really likes it, it's not perfect, but it's the best thing we've got to a level playing field" -- and I think that both parties have tried to change it speaks to that. People want to talk about "fair" and "genuine" -- and you may genuinely believe the changes to the system are more fair and genuine than the other. But you absolutely cannot ignore the political power aspect of it. You can't. ALL of this is politics.

That's why I get frustrated when people act as if "fair" matters as some sort of grand macrocosmic ideal. That's fine. I don't really care what you think is "fair". I don't think suppressing voters through voter ID laws is fair. It riles me up and I find it disgusting.

But I can have those genuine feelings with genuine principal behind it while also recognizing that I know that the more people vote, the better Democrats do, and that I want that.

Look at the Sandy Aid relief vote. All of this is politics. Giving aid to certain countries IS POLITICAL. OF COURSE it's moral to help the Northeast. I live in New Jersey. Did I expect the nation's republicans would so explicitly play politics quite as openly as they did? No. But ALL of it is politics.

Why am I talking about Sandy Aid relief? Because it's such a great example of how such an obvious moral thing to do was complicated by the realization that you can NEVER forget the political implications of this.

And that I find it absurd that when people are debating the merits of changing the way via which we elect presidents, that people are really suggesting that their own personal definition of "moral" and "fair" matters oh-so-much-more than the obvious factor being THAT IT HELPS THEM OUT POLITICALLY.

Okay, I can agree with much of this, Qazaq, and this seems more reasonable and focused.

I would argue with one point, however: what the Democrats are doing is not the "polar opposite" of what the Republicans are doing. The Republicans want to break down the state-level-all-or-nothing system in to a district-level-all-or-nothing system; what some Democrats propose is simply to take that one step further. Break the states down in to districts, then break the districts down in to individuals.

What the Republicans are doing, essentially, is breaking down the states in to smaller packets they can more reliably control to their own benefit. Create districts favorable to them -- and then redraw those districts 10 years later if the battle lines change.

By contrast, the national popular vote would be much more challenging to control bureaucratically. There's no real way to "rig" the national popular vote in that way. You can "rig" districts by drawing their lines to suit your needs, but the Democratic plan ultimately relies on people liking them. If less people liked them overall, there would be no tricks they could pull, no battle lines to redraw in their favor. They would lose, pure and simple.

So while I see your point (and don't think it's all unreasonable), I would say it's unfair to suggest that these are two equally valid options and that there is no "objective standpoint," as you said earlier.

 

[Black Mamba]

1) My argument that the NPV does indeed favor the Democrats systematically; that I don't find it remotely unreasonable to say it's basically an inverse of what the Republicans are doing to change the system to benefit them.

But this isn't true. It simply favors the median voter, not democrats.

How many times can you state this and have people refute it and you ignore it? The NPV does not favor Democrats.

edit: And once again, you can award the state's EC votes based on proportion of vote. Which also helps third party candidates.

 

[tranciful]

I recognize that you guys are saying that. I do.

What I wish everyone ELSE would recognize is that, as demonstrated by the damn thread, you can go on for infinity about this stuff.

You want to consider a million contexts for this infinite question of the merits behind this way of counting democracy and fairness and urban and rural interests and such? Great, we've already been doing so.

But at the end of the day, the more weight you place on sheer turnout in a country that is becoming more and more urban, the more the party that caters to that is obviously going to benefit. It's not rocket science.

And the current EC system IS ALREADY CATERING TO THAT REALITY. In a perfect, flaw-free way? No. But CHANGING THE SYSTEM TO THAT it will FAVOR the Democrats SYSTEMATICALLY.

If an election result doesn't reflect the changing demographics of a country, I'd call that an objective failure.

Trying to impede that by propping up a shrinking minority is counter to democracy.

 

[Qazaq]

All of these ideas are being considered within reason.

When I talk about a region of farmers in Kansas having different opinions on what having a "voice" means and what "fair" means in a Democracy, I don't mean that if these farmers wished to deny black people the right to vote that it's just as acceptable an idea as the NPV.


BUT, a real genuine concern is that, if for some reason these Kansas farmers DID hate black people, they have the right to elect someone to the House that hates black people and will vote to make it harder for them to vote.

That's a very difficult subject to debate. I'm gay and Jewish. And liberal. Don't misinterpret what side of the spectrum I fall on here.

But I only bring it up by saying, all of this is within reason, and I'm not talking about the Kansas farmers having the right to secede from the union or create a Sharia region or anything like that.

Debating about the way that this region of Kansas farmers makes their voices heard in a representative democracy is not something to write off as fringe and unreasonable and nihilistic.

 

[Qazaq]

If an election result doesn't reflect the changing demographics of a country, I'd call that an objective failure.

Trying to impede that by propping up a shrinking majority is counter to democracy.

Why do people keep acting like the EC doesn't account for this? Multiple people keep saying this and it boggles my mind. The whole point of the EC is that it reflects the changing populations of the states.

 

[Magni]

Qazaq, I asked this a while back but didn't get an answer: why do the states matter at all in the only federal election we have? Why do counties not matter in gubernatorial or federal senatorial elections?

I mean, you may think that, but erm, it's not.

I'm searching for the number of rural congressional districts but can't find any data. If there are more than 87 (20% of 425), than rural voters are overrepresented in the House.

 

[The Technomancer]

Okay, I can agree with much of this, Qazaq, and this seems more reasonable and focused.

I would argue with one point, however: what the Democrats are doing is not the "polar opposite" of what the Republicans are doing. The Republicans want to break down the state-level-all-or-nothing system in to a district-level-all-or-nothing system; what some Democrats propose is simply to take that one step further; break the states down in to districts, then break the districts down in to individuals.

What the Republicans are doing, essentially, is breaking down the states in to smaller packets they can more reliably control to their own benefit. Create districts favorable to them -- and then redraw those districts 10 years later if the battle lines change.

This is essentially what I was saying on the last page about resolutions and mapping. At the district resolution its not only somewhat difficult to map accurately to the individual level but its also relatively easy to deliberately mis-align so as to change the results. Its basically impossible to do anything similar at the resolution of the individual.

 

[Black Mamba]

All of these ideas are being considered within reason.

When I talk about a region of farmers in Kansas having different opinions on what having a "voice" means and what "fair" means in a Democracy, I don't mean that if these farmers wished to deny black people the right to vote that it's just as acceptable an idea as the NPV.


BUT, a real genuine concern is that, if for some reason these Kansas farmers DID hate black people, they have the right to elect someone to the House that hates black people and will vote to make it harder for them to vote.

That's a very difficult subject to debate. I'm gay and Jewish. And liberal. Don't misinterpret what side of the spectrum I fall on here.

But I only bring it up by saying, all of this is within reason, and I'm not talking about the Kansas farmers having the right to secede from the union or create a Sharia region or anything like that.

Debating about the way that this region of Kansas farmers makes their voices heard in a representative democracy is not something to write off as fringe and unreasonable and nihilistic.

Many people in this country deny evolution. But they are wrong. it is not up for opinion.

So you're argument that Kansas voters have a different idea of what "fair" is doesn't really matter. Unless they can articulate that into a convincing argument, it doesn't matter.

The question before us should be what system of voting we should have with regards to the President. And I'd argue one that caters to the median voter because the President is supposed to represent the country as a whole and that is, by definition, the median voter. We have the Legislative branch to represent specific individual interests and the executive is a check on that.

Therefore the election should be set up so that the median voter elects the President. What is the best way to do this? Awarding EC votes by proportion in the state followed by NPV. The least good option to accomplish this would be gerrymandering districts and having each district count as a vote.

 

[tranciful]

Why do people keep acting like the EC doesn't account for this? Multiple people keep saying this and it boggles my mind. The whole point of the EC is that it reflects the changing populations of the states.

Switching to NPV would objectively put the election results closer to the shifting demographics.

Gerrymandering districts so that minority voting blocks dictate the outcome objectively does the opposite.

What the GOP is doing and the push for NPV are objectively different.

And I'm off to bed.

 

[remist]

Debating about the way that this region of Kansas farmers makes their voices heard in a representative democracy is not something to write off as fringe and unreasonable and nihilistic.

You said that you weren't interested in this debate. You said it was "infinite" and not worth having. That is where people are getting the nihilism from.

 

[The Technomancer]

Debating about the way that this region of Kansas farmers makes their voices heard in a representative democracy is not something to write off as fringe and unreasonable and nihilistic.

And what I am saying is that in a direct voting system the level to which their voices are heard is proportional to the size of the population they make up, and I have asked time and time again for an actual argument from you as to why this would be unfair, and all I have gotten back is "but they would think its unfair, can't you see that?". Which is why I, and others, are frustrated that your stance seems to be "all opinions on the subject are intrinsically equally valid"

You come off as a pure moral relativist, beyond even psychological and sociological considerations.

 

[platypotamus]

You guys, I'm going to go have another baby, raise my children, and work until I reach retirement eligible age. Think you can wrap this up by then?

 

[Qazaq]

So while I see your point (and don't think it's all unreasonable), I would say it's unfair to suggest that these are two equally valid options and that there is no "objective standpoint," as you said earlier.

Actually, I really should have corrected myself. I DON'T think both are equal. I think both systematically change the system to benefit one party over the other -- that is where I think they are similar. And it has bugged me that people refused to cede this.



But I do not find the current VA Republican plan equally "unreasonable" to the NPV. Why?

What the Republicans are doing, essentially, is breaking down the states in to smaller packets they can more reliably control to their own benefit. Create districts favorable to them -- and then redraw those districts 10 years later if the battle lines change.

By contrast, the national popular vote would be much more challenging to control bureaucratically. There's no real way to "rig" the national popular vote in that way. You can "rig" districts by drawing their lines to suit your needs, but the Democratic plan ultimately relies on people liking them. If less people liked them overall, there would be no tricks they could pull, no battle lines to redraw in their favor. They would lose, pure and simple.

You said it yourself!

I think I was the first to post in this thread about the VA Republicans "rigging" this. It's a rig because of this. Because of the gerrymandering. And that's why I ultimately think these laws won't happen. THAT reason.

Do I WANT to see electoral votes being decided by district? Absolutely not.

But if you removed the willy nilly gerrymandering aspect to it, I don't think electing a president via electoral vote per district is inherently more "unfair" or "fair" than the NPV. One version helps the Republicans, one helps the Republicans.

 

[Qazaq]

I'm searching for the number of rural congressional districts but can't find any data. If there are more than 87 (20% of 425), than rural voters are overrepresented in the House.

Well if they are, and they likely are, that's due to gerrymandering, not literally because the institution of the House of Representatives inherently favors rural interests by default.

 

[Gotchaye]

You guys, I'm going to go have another baby, raise my children, and work until I reach retirement eligible age. Think you can wrap this up by then?

Nice try. You're just trying to advantage the Democrats by raising a reliably-liberal voter.

Don't worry, everyone; Virginia's going to limit the franchise to those currently over 55. Some say that's more fair.

 

[Opiate]

All of these ideas are being considered within reason.

When I talk about a region of farmers in Kansas having different opinions on what having a "voice" means and what "fair" means in a Democracy, I don't mean that if these farmers wished to deny black people the right to vote that it's just as acceptable an idea as the NPV.

Okay, I agree with most of this. More to the point, do you feel that the Republican districting system is as reasonable and fair as a national popular vote? Because I don't think it is. A national popular vote would be much harder to "rig" in your favor than would a bureaucratic districting process. Further, I don't think these represent two equally devious sides of a coin. Nor, as I stated above, do I see them as "polar opposites." If anything, I see the Democratic proposal as the natural progression of the Republican one. If we're going to start breaking down state level voting in to smaller pieces, why not go the whole way?

BUT, a real genuine concern is that, if for some reason these Kansas farmers DID hate black people, they have the right to elect someone to the House that hates black people and will vote to make it harder for them to vote.

That's a very difficult subject to debate. I'm gay and Jewish. And liberal. Don't misinterpret what side of the spectrum I fall on here.

But I only bring it up by saying, all of this is within reason, and I'm not talking about the Kansas farmers having the right to secede from the union or create a Sharia region or anything like that.

Debating about the way that this region of Kansas farmers makes their voices heard in a representative democracy is not something to write off as fringe and unreasonable and nihilistic.

Yes, I agree with this.

 

[Qazaq]

You said that you weren't interested in this debate. You said it was "infinite" and not worth having. That is where people are getting the nihilism from.

Because I got accused of equating all ideas as being equal. It was a long way of saying the idea of electing a president based on electoral vote per district is certainly not in the realm of unreasonable compared to that example.

 

[The Technomancer]

Because I got accused of equating all ideas as being equal. It was a long way of saying the idea of electing a president based on electoral vote per district is certainly not in the realm of unreasonable compared to that example.

You said that there's no way to say one idea is more "fair" than another. If all ideas aren't created equal than what do you use as your discretionary criteria?