Philosophical Vegan Forum

This topic is about the system of the Electoral College in the United States.

For those who are unaware of how the Electoral College works, I will begin by explaining a similar electoral system, which is the First Past The Post system in the United Kingdom.

In the United Kingdom, there 650 constituencies, which are areas of Great Britain and Northern Ireland represented by a Member of Parliament whose duty it is to represent the views of their constituents.

In a general election, a party must win 326 seats (in practice a little lower than this as Sinn Fein doesn't take their seats so can't vote against a government) in order to win an election. If they don't, then they must go into a coalition.

What this means is that the House of Commons where all the MPs sit is not actually representative of the views of the British people. A party can win an election without actually getting the most votes, and this has actually happened before. The British people, as a result, are underrepresented. This happened most notably in the last election in 2015, where the UK Independence party was the third largest party in regards to votes, and yet received only one seat.

This has many campaigning for electoral reform in the United Kingdom, in particular for a system called Proportional Representation, which would translate the amount of votes into seats.

Many people believe that the First Past the Post system is a better one as it means that MPs are present to listen in on issues that affect a local area. However, this is not an issue in Proportional Representation countries such as Germany, whose voting system allows for a "first vote" which elects a representative for their constituency or local area, and all the representatives of the constituencies take their seats in the Bundestag however their "second vote" goes to deciding the share of seats each party has in the Bundestag. For instance, if they see that there are not enough SPD seats proportional to the votes of the German people, they will add more SPD representatives.

So, in a First Past the Post system in an imaginary country named "Plipistan" where there are three constituencies, and whoever has a majority of two constituencies win an election, it can actually have very undemocratic results:

Constituency #1 - Party A wins 1 vote, Party B wins 1 million votes, Party B takes this constituency
Constituency #2 - Party A wins 4 votes, Party B wins 2 votes, Party A takes this constituency
Constituency #3 - Party A wins 5 votes, Party B wins 3 votes, Party A takes this constituency

So Party A wins the election, despite only having 9 votes, whilst Party B has 1 million and 5 votes.

This is exaggerated. However, it still can indeed happen under a First Past The Post system.

Now, an Electoral College system such as that which exists in the United States is similar to this. Whoever wins the most electoral votes from districts wins the election. However, unlike in Britain, where if the majority in a constituency vote for a Labour MP, they will get a Labour MP, in the United States, if the majority of an electoral district vote for the Republican Party, they are in fact voting for an elector who is pledged to vote for the Republican Party. This elector has no legal obligation to vote for the Republican Party. They can vote Democrat and get away with it.

Many advocate that the Electoral College is a good electoral system despite this due to prevention of "mob rule" where the majority force their will upon the minority. This is a reasonable complaint against a democratic system such as a Proportional Representation system, and in an ideal world, we could have a system where nobody would be able to force their will on another person. However, the alternative is not that. The alternative is the minority enforcing their will on the majority.

The minority I am referring to are (in the case of the U.S. Electoral College) the electors. These electors are people who have no reason to be in charge of the process and make the whole voting process in effect meaningless as they are not legally obliged to vote for the party that the majority in their district vote for. They in many occasions vote for a candidate who isn't even running. For instance, Colin Powell received 3 electoral votes in the last election. Most laughably appalling was in 2004 when an elector, instead of voting for Democrat John Kerry, voted for his running mate John Edwards. He didn't even spell Edwards' name right - He wrote "John Ewards"!

And no, I am not denying that you get these sorts of idiots in the general public. For instance, some people during the UK Brexit referendum did not even know what they were voting for and thought that they were voting for whether the Prime Minister would be David Cameron or Boris Johnson, rather than whether they would be remaining in or leaving the EU. The general public and the electors are alike - Some of them will know what they are voting for, some of them will be clueless, some of them will vote with how the country will benefit in mind, and some of them will vote for selfish reasons.

However, either way they will be voting for a leader to represent an entire country. How can a leader represent an entire country if they are not elected by a small minority? Why is the minority enforcing their rule on the majority better than the majority enforcing their rule on the minority?

Democracy at its worst is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The Electoral College system at its worst, however, is three sheep voting on what is for dinner, and their vote being passed on to a wolf elector.

Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others!

Democracies are unstable forms of government....over time they tend to converge to dictatorships over time and this has happened historically many times. Sometimes it happens with force but often it happens with the "will of the people"....they vote in popular autocrats that transform the government from the inside. The electoral college is a system that can help prevent the raise of such autocrats.

But the system in the US has changed and, as can be seen in the last election, did nothing to prevent the raise of an obvious autocrat.

carnap wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:31 pm Democracies are unstable forms of government....over time they tend to converge to dictatorships over time and this has happened historically many times. Sometimes it happens with force but often it happens with the "will of the people"....they vote in popular autocrats that transform the government from the inside. The electoral college is a system that can help prevent the raise of such autocrats.

But the system in the US has changed and, as can be seen in the last election, did nothing to prevent the raise of an obvious autocrat.

In what way has the electoral college changed to make it different?

Also, what examples of democracies having elections that bringing in autocrats were there? The only example I can think of is Hitler in the Weimar Republic, and this was in no way democratic. It was actually due to the anti-democratic measure of Article 48 in the Weimar constitution which gave President Hindenburg the ability to curtail the constitutional rights and even ban the Communist party. Because of this, Hitler was voted ultimate power by the DNVP and the Centre Party, because the Communist Party which would have voted against him was banned, and the Social Democratic Party members were bullied and beaten by Nazi thugs so many would abstain. Even those who did not (such as Otto Wels) were powerless against these anti-democratic measures.

Not to mention that a system of Proportional Representation exists in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden, amongst a multitude of other countries, none of which are on the verge of becoming fascist, autocratic or dictatorships.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:23 pm In what way has the electoral college changed to make it different?

The changes have been made largely at the state and local level as the amendment hasn't changed.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:23 pm Also, what examples of democracies having elections that bringing in autocrats were there? The only example I can think of is Hitler in the Weimar Republic, and this was in no way democratic. It was actually due to the anti-democratic measure of Article 48 in the Weimar constitution which gave President Hindenburg the ability to curtail the constitutional rights and even ban the Communist party.

It was democracy The Weimar republic was a democracy and when democracies fail its typically because various policies were pursued that overtime undermined the democracy...but the policies at the time were created democratically.

Also there are many other examples, for example, most governments in Southern America were once democracies but have now become dictatorships of some sort.

The book "How democracies fail" goes over the details of many examples.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:23 pm Not to mention that a system of Proportional Representation exists in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden, amongst a multitude of other countries, none of which are on the verge of becoming fascist, autocratic or dictatorships.

They aren't "on the verge" at the moment....which says nothing about how they will be in the future. But a lot of this comes down to culture and how resistant the culture is to raising autocrats......often the public supports raising autocrats because they provide "solutions".

Though there is increasing political discontent throughout Europe and that is the environmental where you often see democracy undermined.

I didn't used to agree with the electoral college, but it does seem to be a preventative against mob rule. History has shown us time and again that what the majority of people believe isn't necessarily right or moral.

Whilst I understand that the tyranny of the majority is not ideal, and dictatorships have often sprouted from democratic governments, the only alternative is the tyranny of the minority that exists in systems such as the electoral college, and dictatorships can come about just as easily under that system.

Quite true. If only there were an alternative to giving so much power to so few. If only there were a political ideology that focused on individual freedom, with minimal government. But even if this were so, it is apparently common to give away freedom for the illusion of safety, so the masses will always beg to be ruled..sigh.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:43 pm Quite true. If only there were an alternative to giving so much power to so few. If only there were a political ideology that focused on individual freedom, with minimal government. But even if this were so, it is apparently common to give away freedom for the illusion of safety, so the masses will always beg to be ruled..sigh.

Are you referring to Libertarianism?

If so, I am afraid I must answer your questions with another question:

How would elections (for the limited government) work in a Libertarian society?

This is bearing in mind that the original thread is about elections. To choose your government, it will either be a dictatorship, a tyranny of the minority or a tyranny of the majority. Either way, there is no guarantee that your government will not tax you, will not infringe on your rights, etc.

In fact, the best way to ensure that it would do as you liked is for it to be a dictatorship, and for you, PsYcHo, to be the dictator and to be a benevolent dictator who will not tax his citizens or infringe on their rights and essentially leave them to their own devices. The problem with this, however, is that power corrupts, and by having absolute power, your views may drift from libertarianism into extreme authoritarianism. Even if they don't, you better hope that the same doesn't happen to your successor when you die.

However, in either a tyranny of the minority (such as the Electoral College) or a tyranny of the majority (such as Proportional Representation), a government can easily be formed that could even make Hitler and Stalin look like anarchists.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:52 am In fact, the best way to ensure that it would do as you liked is for it to be a dictatorship, and for you, PsYcHo, to be the dictator and to be a benevolent dictator who will not tax his citizens or infringe on their rights and essentially leave them to their own devices. The problem with this, however, is that power corrupts, and by having absolute power, your views may drift from libertarianism into extreme authoritarianism. Even if they don't, you better hope that the same doesn't happen to your successor when you die.

Thus the "sigh". Much like your beloved Communism, both our (ideal) ideologies depend on people being decent towards each other and not taking advantage of the weaker among them. Either of our systems could work, but mine is based on a collective belief in individual freedom, yours is based on "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". (or something like that)

Which is more likely; the many taking advantage of the few, or the individuals taking advantage of many? (Maybe we should start a new thread since we are no longer discussing the electoral college.)

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:59 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:52 am In fact, the best way to ensure that it would do as you liked is for it to be a dictatorship, and for you, PsYcHo, to be the dictator and to be a benevolent dictator who will not tax his citizens or infringe on their rights and essentially leave them to their own devices. The problem with this, however, is that power corrupts, and by having absolute power, your views may drift from libertarianism into extreme authoritarianism. Even if they don't, you better hope that the same doesn't happen to your successor when you die.

Thus the "sigh". Much like your beloved Communism, both our (ideal) ideologies depend on people being decent towards each other and not taking advantage of the weaker among them. Either of our systems could work, but mine is based on a collective belief in individual freedom, yours is based on "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". (or something like that)

Which is more likely; the many taking advantage of the few, or the individuals taking advantage of many? (Maybe we should start a new thread since we are no longer discussing the electoral college.)

I am not a Communist, although I noticed that you put "ideal" in brackets. My ideal ideology would be in fact Transhumanism in which we could all just upload our brains onto computers and live in ecstasy. However, I realize that such an ideology is even more utopian than Communism, so my actual ideology is the realistic Democratic Socialism as supported by Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and Kim Jong-un which has been tried and has succeeded. Unlike Communism and Capitalism which have both tried and failed, and Libertarianism and Transhumanism which have never been (and I doubt could feasibly ever be) tried.

[your system] is based on "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Exactly. Imagine the famous trolley problem: A trolley is headed to run over three people, but you can divert it onto another track where it will only kill two.

Obviously, the ideal would be to save them all. However, this is impossible, so the best thing to do in my view is to save the three and divert the trolley onto the track where it will only kill two.

This is in itself its own Tyranny of the Majority. The rights of the two are infringed upon by my decision to spare the three. However, the only alternative is the Tyranny of the Minority: Infringing on the rights of the three by sparing the two.

Neither the Tyranny of the Majority or the Tyranny of the Minority are lovely systems. However, one of them must be in place, and my belief is that it is better for the few to have their rights infringed upon than the many.