Philosophical Vegan Forum

I've written before on how I think "money in politics" as a bogeyman and that I don't believe in widespread political corruption for money (for which there is no good evidence), rather, the issue is one of ideology (for which the evidence is overwhelming, and supported by human psychology).

In terms of ideology, this (the electoral college) is one of the biggest problems the U.S. faces (and by extension, the world).
The last two Republican presidents elected (George W. and Trump) lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college and thus became president.
And unfortunately, because of the way electoral votes are distributed, fundamentalists who are anti-environmental protection have an iron grip on the Republican party and disproportionate representation in the government and the world. It's like the ultimate form of gerrymandering.

This is one real way it might be improved: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it, including four small jurisdictions (RI, VT, HI, DC), three medium- size states (MD, MA, WA), and four big states (NJ, IL, NY, CA). The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 states—most recently by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Arizona House, a 28–18 vote in the Oklahoma Senate, a 57–4 vote in New York Senate, and a 37–21 vote in Oregon House.

There are of course a lot of serious advantages to this to the states that sign on to it. Politically, it gets them more attention rather than being ignored as irrelevant if this reaches critical mass.

This is the most exciting thing in politics I've read all year. And now that a very unpopular president has been elected yet again against popular vote, there's a very good chance of this becoming a reality if democrats, independents, and pragmatic and fair republicans can come together to push this issue.

This will by no means destroy the republican party: it will save it. By appealing to the popular vote, republicans will be able to move more center and start engaging on real economic issues and new welfare ideas rather than being bogged down in the demands of religious fundamentalism that has dominated the party. And, in red states and blue states both, be able to attract more attention to their local issues away from battleground states where they would have otherwise been ignored by the federal government as irrelevant in the executive elections.

Thoughts?

This is very important, and the intiiative is very exciting. You guys have a ridiculous system from a European perspective. There have now been 4 instances of a president being elected while another candidate got the popular vote, which amounts to a 7% chance.

CGP Grey has two excellent video series on voting:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9936C719FF689E7D

This initiative has the benefit of not having to change the constitution. If you could change the constitution, I think adopting a European style electoral and parliamentary system would be a great improvement for the US.

I totally disagree with you about money in politics, but I completely agree with the Popular Vote proposal. Thanks, I emailed my representatives.

I heard that the founding fathers created the electoral college because they thought the people were too stupid to vote properly, which may or may not be true. It probably is though.

RedAppleGP wrote:I heard that the founding fathers created the electoral college because they thought the people were too stupid to vote properly, which may or may not be true. It probably is though.

I agree with that in principle, but this election just proved it doesn't work. If it did, the electoral college would have just said "nyeh" to Trump and voted Hillary despite what the people they represent wanted.

If I understand correctly, the result of the election could legally be overturned by the electoral college. They would have some justification since Clinton won the popular vote. How likely do you think that possibility is, and would it be a good thing?

miniboes wrote:If I understand correctly, the result of the election could legally be overturned by the electoral college. They would have some justification since Clinton won the popular vote. How likely do you think that possibility is, and would it be a good thing?

It's possible, but I have no basis upon which to assess its probability.
Again, an ass-pull.

I could speculate that the probability has to do with Republican support of Trump.

If we limit it to congress to get a percentage, we can approximate.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/full-list-where-every-republican-in-congress-stands-on-donald-trump/article/2592510
This is old, but it can give us some idea.

Senators who have endorsed Donald Trump (7):
Senators who will not endorse Donald Trump (6):
Senators who announced their support of the GOP nominee after May 4, the day Donald Trump became the party's presumptive nominee (30):
Senators who announced their support of the GOP nominee before May 4, the day Donald Trump became the party's presumptive nominee (9):
Senators who won't say if they support Donald Trump (2):
(of 54)

House members who have endorsed Donald Trump (23):
House members who will not endorse Donald Trump (13):
House members who announced their support of the GOP nominee after May 4, the day Donald Trump became the party's presumptive nominee (138):
House members who announced their support of the GOP nominee before May 4, the day Donald Trump became the party's presumptive nominee (32):
House members who won't say if they endorse Donald Trump (40):
(of 246, there's one missing?)

"The 2014 elections gave the Republicans control of the Senate (and control of both houses of Congress) for the first time since the 109th Congress. With 247 seats in the House of Representatives and 54 seats in the Senate, this Congress began with the largest Republican majority since the 71st Congress of 1929–1931."

I'll just ignore that missing one, it's not significant.

I'll average the two ratios.

((6/54) + (13/246))/2 = 0.08197831978
We'll call it an 8% chance that any member of the electoral college will oppose trump.

Here's a breakdown:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/12/voters-targeted-electoral-college-members-to-switch-their-trump-ballots-elect-clinton.html

Trump won 290 of the so-called electoral votes, in the race to get a minimum 270.[...]
Organizers in that drive are targeting roughly 160 Republican electorates in the 15 states that Trump won and don’t have laws bounding the electorates to the winner: Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

I'm assuming Clinton got the rest of them, which means (I think) that she has 248. 22 members of the electoral college would need to change their votes. (EDIT: Looks like she didn't get the rest, 38 would have to change their votes, since Trump probably stands at 306)

22 out of 160. If the 8% opposition statistic holds, we would only expect 12.8 of them to change their votes. Not enough.
I would not expect any of the Republicans who actually support Trump to do so; electoral college members had no problem with the Bush results.

I wouldn't rank the probability as being very high unless he does something just terrible between now and December 19th. Probably under one in a thousand odds assuming the electorates vies map well to republicans in congress, but I haven't calculated it based on that (you can just see that it's improbable).

I have always been opposed to the electoral college, but I did hear an interesting argument for it. (I wrote a longer version, but the wi-fi hear sucks, so TL;DR version)

Since cities are so high density in population, they have an advantage over the sub-urban and rural areas in the popular vote. In California for instance, the small town of Weed would have to abide by whatever Los Angeles decides, even thought they are totally different communities hundreds of miles away.

Not to mention (devil's advocate here a bit ), how many times in history have the majority of people been wrong?

PsYcHo wrote:I have always been opposed to the electoral college, but I did hear an interesting argument for it. (I wrote a longer version, but the wi-fi hear sucks, so TL;DR version)

Since cities are so high density in population, they have an advantage over the sub-urban and rural areas in the popular vote. In California for instance, the small town of Weed would have to abide by whatever Los Angeles decides, even thought they are totally different communities hundreds of miles away.

Not to mention (devil's advocate here a bit ), how many times in history have the majority of people been wrong?

I don't understand. That's how the Presidency works, half of the country abides by what the other half decides.

EquALLity wrote: I don't understand. That's how the Presidency works, half of the country abides by what the other half decides.

But... the city of Los Angeles is totally different from Weed. The basic argument is that the cities have an unfair advantage over the sub-urban and rural areas. (Remember, devil's advocate. Historically, the electoral college was started to give the south a bigger voice, specifically by the 3/5ths rule)