Could you elaborate your opinion about the electoral college? For me, non US citizen, the electoral college in combination with a “winner takes it all” approach to who gets their vote leads to a two party system which leads to the currently extreme partisan divide in your society. Currently the middle of the road majority in regard of their political opinion has to choose between the lesser of two evils. With a true representation of voters will and more options to choose from I think you might be better of.
Tobias- a two party system has benefits and drawbacks. While it might at times seem that there is a deep partisan divide, so much of that is created by the echo chambers of social media, the narratives of mainstream media and the natural human tendency to see things in terms of either- I agree with you, or I completely disagree with you. Often, we may not see entirely eye to eye, but we probably still agree on many points.
The two party system has a reputation for drawing people to the MIDDLE of the partisan isle. As a strategy, each party must play to the middle as much as possible in order to gain the majority approval and vote. Whereas, with a multiparty system, candidates can really be all over the place, with much less mainstream ideology. I don’t buy into the concept of choosing “between the lesser of two evils”. ALL people are capable of evil and have seen that potential within their own self. If they have not seen that potential, they are naive and lack a sort of honesty that helps one to mature at a good pace. Two flawed candidates is probably just as adequate has several 😆 While many might be snooty about Trump’s lack of philosophical integrity and personal style, his policies and judicial appointments should more than satisfy the right’s craving for a cultural shift on the political paradigm.
Most issues can be easily bifurcated and represented by two (albeit flawed) parties. A multi party system represents a whole new host of issues, although I see its allure. Which system do you prefer, and where do you live?
Hi Jessica, i totally agree that any democratic representation has its flaws (also here in Germany). What I do like however with more parties to choose from is the chance to pick a party that represents me the best. The problem with this system arises in a later stage that after elections you have to find a coalition and then you have to start making compromises on your ideas. That has to happen in a two party system already before election.
I still don’t understand why “ The Electoral college plays a crucial role in National solidarity and stability in innumerable ways.”
In my view, solidarity is made possible when “everyone is necessary”. Emile Durkheim spoke of a sort of social organic solidarity or “cohesion” that arises in modern society as a result of interdependence between people in society based on each person filling a vital role in the division of labor.
In a similar way, each unique state within the United States, brings something vital to the table, and must be treated as equal to the other states on some levels, in order to maintain the amount of affection, solidarity and resulting stability that we currently enjoy. If we abandoned the EC- our 4 most populated states would exercise way too much influence. Soon, candidates would campaign only to NY, California, Texas and Florida. Because, those states have so many electoral votes, we already see that politicians focus much of there time in those places already. The unique balance that the US has held in place between individual voting power, state power and federal power is exceptional. If we disrupt that balance (which ironically won’t happen anytime soon, BECAUSE of that very balance) solidarity would decline as well as stability.
Understand, but wouldn’t you say that you receive this equal representation by your Senate?
And I just wonder how I would feel living on the border of one of your above mentioned population rich states and my vote would just represent a fraction of the weight of the vote of a neighboring state a mile away with a small population. Wouldn’t be equal representation and fair in my view.
Given the fact that you don‘t abandon the EC anytime soon
I think that at least every state should vote in the electoral college based upon their share of vote for each party.
I reply later in more depth but, maybe also because I am used to our party dominated process of electing officials, I am actually quite happy that we don‘t elect the executive directly but indirectly by voting for the legislative which after the election elects the chancellor. I would prefer to be able to vote for our president though since I sometimes don‘t like the way that the candidates are politically chosen. It is also less of a critical role in our democracy for most day to day topics but more the soul and conscious of our nation.
Tobias- the Congress is balanced between the House of Representatives and Senate, as you point out. And, the Executive branch is balanced with the EC by giving population heavy states WAY more electoral votes. If the EC were to go away, then essentially, 5-10 states would choose the president. WITH the EC, more populated states have more say, but they don’t have the complete say. It is balanced.
I’m happy to see Jessica’s thoughts, but can you elaborate on how you think the EC maintains the two party system. I have thoughts but am interested in understanding what leads you to that conclusion.
Since EC does not split votes depending on votes for a candidate it is essential to win the majority of the votes in a specific state. All votes for the 2nd winner will be lost. Therefore there is always a tendency towards having only two options to choose from for a voter since chances rise with every additional party that my vote will not be represented. The winner takes it all approach is the main reason that drives the two party system, but compared to the UK the EC adds weight to this.
Except for the two party system goes beyond just the presidency. We could point to rules of Congress for a pretty clear example of how the two-party system is maintained.
I'm NO fan of the two party system. I ran a third party for years and know a) how hard and fruitless it is, and how the cabal keeps its power.
The EC is broader than that, but sure, one could argue that it helps maintain the two party system... but every state has the power to do RCV (ranked choice voting) at least for local elections, and that could but a damper on the duopoly.
One could also argue that the two party system is what MAKES the Electoral College as problematic as it is. After all, we have systems in place for when neither candidate gets to 271 Electoral Votes... and there is nothing stopping an independent candidate from winning a few states... other than the two party system (the committees in conjunction with state election laws and the media, etc) which keeps the barriers high.
So we can do a lot with RCV, more of a focus on local politics.. any number of things without sacrificing the OTHER checks and balances (balancing the needs of smaller more sparse, agricultural states and marine sure their voices are heard in picking the executive branch as well...
Our system IS different than most countries in terms of subsidiarity... "E Pluribus Unum..." without the EC... then the President need only get the approval of the densely populated areas on the coasts and the mid-west, and they can ignore a large swath of the country.
The U.S. Senate (in contrast with the House) is the way that we create balance between big states and little states in the Legislative Branch... The EC is how we maintain that balance in the Executive Branch.
The last election is a perfect example. 57 Counties got Hillary Clinton almost all of her votes... without them she loses the popular vote (if that was a thing) by a LARGE margin. My family in Louisiana doesn't want to be run by NY and California... they want a president that represents them as well... and the EC maintains that possibility.
It'll be interesting to see the effects of the census this year... that could swing a few more electoral votes (and Congressional seats) towards the center of the country.
" Of the approximately 40% of the population that typically does not show up to vote in a national election, the solid majority are self-proclaimed Democrats."
Can you tell me where you got that information from? I am very interested.
You premise that there is a solid democrat majority among the 40% who typically do not vote appears to be at odds with the data. A 1% advantage (Gallop) is not advantage at all. These studies typically come with a 2-3% margin of error. Pew has a a 4% Democrat margin and that puts the delta also into the statistical noise . Your premise is that there is a solid majority of Democrats in the non-voting 40%. I looked. There is nothing to support this. You might be leaning over your ski's.
Hi Robert. Can you please screenshot the data for demographics of voters who don’t show up at the polls? I was unable to find that subset of data with in the links that you posted. I’m sure it’s probably my error, but could you please just make it easy on me?
J, My point was there is NO data on the non-voting 40%. The data we have shows that there is a statistically insignificant on the voting public. The largest voting block today is 'independent'. The most likely profile for the non-voters is an extrapolation of the 60% that do vote.
Try this link. It’s a few years old but still applicable. There is A LOT of research to support my premise. I hesitate to pronounce it common knowledge but others might dare to. Click through link and scroll down to graph showing the partisan leanings of non voters. It’s significantly Democrat.
This is an excellent premise. I was raised conservative/republican + what drove me to favor democratic platforms was how the disabled are treated by Republican platforms. As though the disabled are lazy and want handouts. My father was disabled at 45 with six children. A humble baptist pastor with no financial cushion. I chose not to vote or even register for years. Eventually I was driven to vote by desperation because the Republican party had become so focused on fear and foreign soil. Also, Trump. I kinda knew that would be a disaster. The first election I voted in was 2016. I think this year will certainly be a surprising show at the polls as we have an entirely new generation eligible to vote with fresh eyes. I will be mailing my ballot along with many other disabled, registered democrats. My military spouse is also mailing his ballot. I believe democracy begins with principles which can be supported in government. However. The millennia old issue of greed and the power to control economies seems to break down many a democratic attempt at governance. (I do disagree regarding the electoral college. Specifically because the structure is a safe harbor for the real life systemic racism which is evident to all BIPOC Citizens of America. But I do not have a solution, so 🤷)
EmJay- we share similarities in our upbringings. I was raised in a hyper- conservative, evangelical Christian, homeschooled at times by military parents, environment.
It was just a tad too authoritarian! 😆Keep up the good work of processing your views, how they’ve been shaped, and where they are heading.
You bring a magnetic, right-brained, creative, feminine energy to this dynamic...which can be challenging but VITAL- I look forward to hearing more from you!
I’d love to get a walkthrough on why the EC is a safe harbor to systemic racism.
I mean.. if African Americans were more concentrated in rural or suburban areas of the South (which used to be the case) and not urban areas in North and South, would the EC be systematically racist then.
The EC hasn’t changed... so I’m curious on how it’s fundamentally racist, or maybe how it became that way?
Sure thing! I have seen a pattern with the republican party where losing the popular vote means disputing the election and relying on the electoral college. We understand from the 2016 election that regardless of the democracy, Congress members are enabled to vote based on what best serves them, not necessarily what best serves their constituents. With the Hill set up the way it is, Trump practically purchased the election (emotionally) and will attempt to do so again in 2020.
Hi Jessica,
Could you elaborate your opinion about the electoral college? For me, non US citizen, the electoral college in combination with a “winner takes it all” approach to who gets their vote leads to a two party system which leads to the currently extreme partisan divide in your society. Currently the middle of the road majority in regard of their political opinion has to choose between the lesser of two evils. With a true representation of voters will and more options to choose from I think you might be better of.
What do you think?
Best
Tobias
Tobias- a two party system has benefits and drawbacks. While it might at times seem that there is a deep partisan divide, so much of that is created by the echo chambers of social media, the narratives of mainstream media and the natural human tendency to see things in terms of either- I agree with you, or I completely disagree with you. Often, we may not see entirely eye to eye, but we probably still agree on many points.
The two party system has a reputation for drawing people to the MIDDLE of the partisan isle. As a strategy, each party must play to the middle as much as possible in order to gain the majority approval and vote. Whereas, with a multiparty system, candidates can really be all over the place, with much less mainstream ideology. I don’t buy into the concept of choosing “between the lesser of two evils”. ALL people are capable of evil and have seen that potential within their own self. If they have not seen that potential, they are naive and lack a sort of honesty that helps one to mature at a good pace. Two flawed candidates is probably just as adequate has several 😆 While many might be snooty about Trump’s lack of philosophical integrity and personal style, his policies and judicial appointments should more than satisfy the right’s craving for a cultural shift on the political paradigm.
Most issues can be easily bifurcated and represented by two (albeit flawed) parties. A multi party system represents a whole new host of issues, although I see its allure. Which system do you prefer, and where do you live?
Hi Jessica, i totally agree that any democratic representation has its flaws (also here in Germany). What I do like however with more parties to choose from is the chance to pick a party that represents me the best. The problem with this system arises in a later stage that after elections you have to find a coalition and then you have to start making compromises on your ideas. That has to happen in a two party system already before election.
I still don’t understand why “ The Electoral college plays a crucial role in National solidarity and stability in innumerable ways.”
In my view, solidarity is made possible when “everyone is necessary”. Emile Durkheim spoke of a sort of social organic solidarity or “cohesion” that arises in modern society as a result of interdependence between people in society based on each person filling a vital role in the division of labor.
In a similar way, each unique state within the United States, brings something vital to the table, and must be treated as equal to the other states on some levels, in order to maintain the amount of affection, solidarity and resulting stability that we currently enjoy. If we abandoned the EC- our 4 most populated states would exercise way too much influence. Soon, candidates would campaign only to NY, California, Texas and Florida. Because, those states have so many electoral votes, we already see that politicians focus much of there time in those places already. The unique balance that the US has held in place between individual voting power, state power and federal power is exceptional. If we disrupt that balance (which ironically won’t happen anytime soon, BECAUSE of that very balance) solidarity would decline as well as stability.
I could be wrong, but at least that is my hunch!
Extremely well put...
Understand, but wouldn’t you say that you receive this equal representation by your Senate?
And I just wonder how I would feel living on the border of one of your above mentioned population rich states and my vote would just represent a fraction of the weight of the vote of a neighboring state a mile away with a small population. Wouldn’t be equal representation and fair in my view.
Given the fact that you don‘t abandon the EC anytime soon
I think that at least every state should vote in the electoral college based upon their share of vote for each party.
Tobias, I have a question... (just keep forgetting to ask this) do you feel the German Chancellor should be elected by popular vote? Why or why not?
I reply later in more depth but, maybe also because I am used to our party dominated process of electing officials, I am actually quite happy that we don‘t elect the executive directly but indirectly by voting for the legislative which after the election elects the chancellor. I would prefer to be able to vote for our president though since I sometimes don‘t like the way that the candidates are politically chosen. It is also less of a critical role in our democracy for most day to day topics but more the soul and conscious of our nation.
Tobias- the Congress is balanced between the House of Representatives and Senate, as you point out. And, the Executive branch is balanced with the EC by giving population heavy states WAY more electoral votes. If the EC were to go away, then essentially, 5-10 states would choose the president. WITH the EC, more populated states have more say, but they don’t have the complete say. It is balanced.
I’m happy to see Jessica’s thoughts, but can you elaborate on how you think the EC maintains the two party system. I have thoughts but am interested in understanding what leads you to that conclusion.
Since EC does not split votes depending on votes for a candidate it is essential to win the majority of the votes in a specific state. All votes for the 2nd winner will be lost. Therefore there is always a tendency towards having only two options to choose from for a voter since chances rise with every additional party that my vote will not be represented. The winner takes it all approach is the main reason that drives the two party system, but compared to the UK the EC adds weight to this.
Except for the two party system goes beyond just the presidency. We could point to rules of Congress for a pretty clear example of how the two-party system is maintained.
I'm NO fan of the two party system. I ran a third party for years and know a) how hard and fruitless it is, and how the cabal keeps its power.
The EC is broader than that, but sure, one could argue that it helps maintain the two party system... but every state has the power to do RCV (ranked choice voting) at least for local elections, and that could but a damper on the duopoly.
One could also argue that the two party system is what MAKES the Electoral College as problematic as it is. After all, we have systems in place for when neither candidate gets to 271 Electoral Votes... and there is nothing stopping an independent candidate from winning a few states... other than the two party system (the committees in conjunction with state election laws and the media, etc) which keeps the barriers high.
So we can do a lot with RCV, more of a focus on local politics.. any number of things without sacrificing the OTHER checks and balances (balancing the needs of smaller more sparse, agricultural states and marine sure their voices are heard in picking the executive branch as well...
Our system IS different than most countries in terms of subsidiarity... "E Pluribus Unum..." without the EC... then the President need only get the approval of the densely populated areas on the coasts and the mid-west, and they can ignore a large swath of the country.
The U.S. Senate (in contrast with the House) is the way that we create balance between big states and little states in the Legislative Branch... The EC is how we maintain that balance in the Executive Branch.
The last election is a perfect example. 57 Counties got Hillary Clinton almost all of her votes... without them she loses the popular vote (if that was a thing) by a LARGE margin. My family in Louisiana doesn't want to be run by NY and California... they want a president that represents them as well... and the EC maintains that possibility.
It'll be interesting to see the effects of the census this year... that could swing a few more electoral votes (and Congressional seats) towards the center of the country.
See graph below where 51% of non voters lean Democratic and 30% lean.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/10/31/the-party-of-nonvoters-2/10-31-2014_03/
Why did you put this up here?
BTW, I just found this doc on Amazon about the EC. Haven’t had a chance to watch it.
https://www.amazon.com/Safeguard-Electoral-College-Trent-England/dp/B08H6KH9QV
Some extra material (in the form of an UNANIMOUS SCOTUS ruling:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/09/the-supreme-court-confirmed-the-electoral-college-here-to-stay/?fbclid=IwAR2QoK_XU4S6cNHr1_PuCE2vJylbeHS06v6ml433XoOQAyM5hum30fqtDt8
" Of the approximately 40% of the population that typically does not show up to vote in a national election, the solid majority are self-proclaimed Democrats."
Can you tell me where you got that information from? I am very interested.
Pew Research Center seems to be reliable for voter demographics.
You premise that there is a solid democrat majority among the 40% who typically do not vote appears to be at odds with the data. A 1% advantage (Gallop) is not advantage at all. These studies typically come with a 2-3% margin of error. Pew has a a 4% Democrat margin and that puts the delta also into the statistical noise . Your premise is that there is a solid majority of Democrats in the non-voting 40%. I looked. There is nothing to support this. You might be leaning over your ski's.
Gallop's data is at odds with your supposition.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
and the pew data does not support it either
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/democratic-edge-in-party-identification-narrows-slightly/
Hi Robert. Can you please screenshot the data for demographics of voters who don’t show up at the polls? I was unable to find that subset of data with in the links that you posted. I’m sure it’s probably my error, but could you please just make it easy on me?
Admittedly, I have always been a terrible skier ;-)
I looked into the Pew and Gallop sites and there is nothing on this 100M strong cohort.
J, My point was there is NO data on the non-voting 40%. The data we have shows that there is a statistically insignificant on the voting public. The largest voting block today is 'independent'. The most likely profile for the non-voters is an extrapolation of the 60% that do vote.
Try this link. It’s a few years old but still applicable. There is A LOT of research to support my premise. I hesitate to pronounce it common knowledge but others might dare to. Click through link and scroll down to graph showing the partisan leanings of non voters. It’s significantly Democrat.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/10/31/the-party-of-nonvoters-2/
This is an excellent premise. I was raised conservative/republican + what drove me to favor democratic platforms was how the disabled are treated by Republican platforms. As though the disabled are lazy and want handouts. My father was disabled at 45 with six children. A humble baptist pastor with no financial cushion. I chose not to vote or even register for years. Eventually I was driven to vote by desperation because the Republican party had become so focused on fear and foreign soil. Also, Trump. I kinda knew that would be a disaster. The first election I voted in was 2016. I think this year will certainly be a surprising show at the polls as we have an entirely new generation eligible to vote with fresh eyes. I will be mailing my ballot along with many other disabled, registered democrats. My military spouse is also mailing his ballot. I believe democracy begins with principles which can be supported in government. However. The millennia old issue of greed and the power to control economies seems to break down many a democratic attempt at governance. (I do disagree regarding the electoral college. Specifically because the structure is a safe harbor for the real life systemic racism which is evident to all BIPOC Citizens of America. But I do not have a solution, so 🤷)
EmJay- we share similarities in our upbringings. I was raised in a hyper- conservative, evangelical Christian, homeschooled at times by military parents, environment.
It was just a tad too authoritarian! 😆Keep up the good work of processing your views, how they’ve been shaped, and where they are heading.
You bring a magnetic, right-brained, creative, feminine energy to this dynamic...which can be challenging but VITAL- I look forward to hearing more from you!
I’d love to get a walkthrough on why the EC is a safe harbor to systemic racism.
I mean.. if African Americans were more concentrated in rural or suburban areas of the South (which used to be the case) and not urban areas in North and South, would the EC be systematically racist then.
The EC hasn’t changed... so I’m curious on how it’s fundamentally racist, or maybe how it became that way?
Sure thing! I have seen a pattern with the republican party where losing the popular vote means disputing the election and relying on the electoral college. We understand from the 2016 election that regardless of the democracy, Congress members are enabled to vote based on what best serves them, not necessarily what best serves their constituents. With the Hill set up the way it is, Trump practically purchased the election (emotionally) and will attempt to do so again in 2020.