I have been thinking about what would happen if state delegates were split proportionally according to the vote, instead of winner takes all, as a sort of half way position.
I mean in general, not just last year.
1 Like
Keep in mind that one person-one vote is an ideology. It’s not written on some stone tablet somewhere.
Does that ideology work the best? Perhaps, but as people don’t actually examine their ideologies much, the answer to the question will probably always be somewhat speculative.
My intuition says that the rush that many folks want to take to make democracy as direct as possible leaves a whole lot on the table (like (a) how to protect the rights of minorities and (b) how to protect against the manifestly knee-jerk reactions that an electorate exhibits).
(As an example of point b, I read a study once where the researchers found that the majority of American citizens would repeal every one of the bills of rights if the questions were timed and worded the right way.)
3 Likes
Then the Democrats turn into pricks. Just put me in charge, I can’t be any worse.
true that.
2 Likes
Unless of course the consequences tend to kill off the young
I’m not entirely decided on the matter; but there is an argument to be made(analogous to the one that keeps the courts busy defending the rights of filthy deviant minorities to offend the majority with their deviance) for avoiding situations where it becomes excessively easy for a high-density zone to shove problems onto a low density zone.
If you overdo it; you run into the unfortunate issue of low-density zones being able to shake down high density zones for pork by refusing to cooperate otherwise; but low-density regions would probably be rather worse off if the site of every toxin smelter and eyesore fabrication facility were decided on ‘1 person, 1 vote’ basis.
The tricky part is figuring out how to create an analog to ‘rights worth protecting even against a majority’, rather than merely giving flyover country a ton of extra senators; since the former is a defensive feature, while the latter can be used for offense and shakedown just as easily.
1 Like
I think this was pretty close to the actual intent of the “Founding Fathers.”
1 Like
To be fair, that was the original purpose.
1 Like
I’m confused. Is your argument that since people don’t examine their ideologies a system of vote parity is speculative? What is the actual point you are attempting to make here?
That’s because your intuition is building straw men. I never suggested direct democracy. That’s just something for which you had a counter in your pocket and has nothing to do with my assertion that 1 person 1 vote is the only fair system of democracy.
I also do not see the connection between vote parity and the protection of minority rights. Minority rights are human rights, the protection of which is a function of the courts. The unreliability and passion of the people are precisely why we do not elect supreme court judges. They are as far removed from the voting process as possible.
Concerning your point B, We have a representative democracy exactly for this reason. We do not vote on laws. We vote for people we hope will represent our best interests. I think this can be safely grouped with that same strawman of yours. Direct democracy is not being discussed so there is nothing to be gained by your explaining why it can be problematic.
Rojava is doing this right now. They seem to be doing well on (a), but we can’t really judge (b) until IS and Turkey stop trying to stop the state from existing.
1 Like
Can you give me an example of that happening? I can give you examples where real world problems which affect all of us are being ignored because of low density area voters.
This is the same straw man I saw earlier. Vote parity is not direct democracy. The locations of those facilities are decided by city and town counsels who are elected by local people. So, those low density area voters are choosing the people that will decide the location of those facility. A big city voting block would not be able to force a small town to have a plant in a place they do not want.
It amazes me that the simple idea of 1 person 1 vote worries so many people.
3 Likes
It’s also odd that people say that without the EC the small states would be ignored. They are anyway. Nobody really fights for Alaska or Wyoming, the power is in the medium sized swing states.
2 Likes
By ignored, they are really just saying no one will campaign there. Let’s be honest, those promises politicians make on the trail are just lip service anyway.
Uh, the number of years doesn’t really matter though, right? Since we’re looking at what percentage of each age group participated, the relative size of each group doesn’t really matter all that much. If the age groups were really small, you could make the case for statistical noise, but that’s not what’s happening here.
I agree with the sentiment, but the reality usually turns out to be the opposite; people in lower density don’t experience the externalities of a toxin smelter as immediately, so they’re more likely to tolerate, or even lobby for their presence. For instance, a lot of rural areas still burn their garbage, which only works because the smoke diffuses to a tolerable concentration before it can hit neighbors.
[quote]But, as the Pew analysis points out — this all refers to potential, not actual political clout. In the 2012 election, voters between the ages of 18-29 made up just 19 percent of the electorate — that’s HALF the share of the Baby Boomer voting bloc (who were 38 percent of the electorate).[/quote]Notice the age bands? 18-29 versus all boomers.
1 Like
The argument is entirely based on generation, so yes it matters a lot.
The 18-29 voting block is being blamed for “Millenials not voting,” so cutting out a large portion of the generation who does vote from that claim makes a big difference. Especially since those blocks are consistent across recent history - 2008, 2012, and 2016 all had about the same share using those age bands even with record turnout for recent history.
Half the eligible voting population doesn’t vote, but it’s not one particular group that doesn’t turn out that needs to be courted or else one of the parties would be out there aggressively pushing legislation to court them.
3 Likes
How is that functionally any different to just abolishing it?
Tyranny of the majority is unfair too.
Not necessarily. The point @fuzzyfungus makes about the siting of toxic dumps and eyesores is a good one. While not strictly a “rights” issue (without some olympic-level convoluted thinking), sparse-regions don’t deserve - if you’ll excuse the pun - to get dumped on just because they’re sparse and the majority can impose their will.
Then why just the Supremes - why not all judges? Also, one step isn’t very far from the voting process.
You’re still preserving the only current benefit of the system, that which allows the votes for the executive branch in less populous states some degree of protection from being rendered essentially irrelevant in our federal republic. Maine and Nebraska do a variation on what I’m discussing within the context of the current Electoral College system – I’m suggesting that one of those systems (or something like them) become the standard for all states and that winner-take-all state electoral totals be eliminated.
I’ve heard that. But since minority interests like banksters, politicians, and the 1% have been setting all the rules since history began, I’ve never seen it happen… anywhere… at any time.
While it may be a time honored axiom, it holds little actual applicability to the real world.
