USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[♔The Black Knight♔]

Well, no. If you get rid of the electoral college and shift to a national popular vote, 90% plus of the geographic area of the country is electorally irrelevant. The only political representation these minorities would have is a few representatives in a Congress whose power is already mostly divided according to population density. Your inference that regional and local political cleavages should not be taken into account when governing the country categorically rejects the principle of popular sovereignty since people living outside a few major urban areas would have little or no say in who becomes president and determines national priorities.

As for your claim that such a situation would not cause an eventual political and civil fragmentation, I can only point you to every civil war in recorded history. If the electoral college has to go, then at least abolish the 17th Amendment too while at it.

So you are making assumptions about the population that aren't true and you are assuming that rural voters and urban voters are a monolithic groups that votes similarly and have similar interests... They don't. In addition, most states are a mix of rural voters and urban voters, not one or another.

At the end of the day, the electoral college doesn't even do what you say it does. With the electoral college, rural voters in California are underrepresented compared to urban voters in Rhode Island. The electoral college favors small states and hurts big states... That's it. It just so happenes that we have more small rural states (in the sense that they are more rural in their makeup) than small urban states ( Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc...) that the representation is the way it is right now... Not because the electoral college actually helps minorities.

And how can you say that rural voters only get a few representatives in Congress? Rural districts make up the majority of the districts in Congress. And smaller states get disproportionate power in the senate. Rural voters have way more representation compared to urban voters in Congress and it's not close (and I'm not arguing that is a bad thing).

Even if we ignore all that Legio, you have to answer this question. Should other minorities get disproportionate voting power because their interests are not represented as well? What about African Americans? Latinos? What about union members? Why arbitrarily tailor disproportionate representation to geography? (Especially when geography is a far worse predictor of interests than other variables.)

[athanaric]

Warren and Sanders are tied with if not beating Biden in the polls. Republicans aren’t going to vote for a centrist Democrat over Trump. A majority of Americans already disapprove of Trump consistently since he was elected, and all polling has pretty much any Dem frontrunner beating Trump by a landslide. I get that “you” don’t like Sanders or Warren, but I don’t get how that translates to “the majority of Americans.”

My point is that Warren and Sanders are pushing insane policies that will probably not meet with the approval of a majority. As for polls, do you remember what happened the last time a Democrat candidate consistently beat Trump in pre-election polls?

[Lord Thesaurian]

So you are making assumptions about the population that aren't true and you are assuming that rural voters and urban voters are a monolithic groups that votes similarly and have similar interests... They don't. In addition, most states are a mix of rural voters and urban voters, not one or another.

You’ve kicked off your rebuttal with a strawman.

At the end of the day, the electoral college doesn't even do what you say it does. With the electoral college, rural voters in California are underrepresented compared to urban voters in Rhode Island.

And here you make a counter claim based on the same strawman you just tried to shoehorn my claims onto.

The electoral college favors small states and hurts big states... That's it. It just so happenes that we have more small rural states (in the sense that they are more rural in their makeup) than small urban states ( Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc...) that the representation is the way it is right now... Not because the electoral college actually helps minorities.


And how can you say that rural voters only get a few representatives in Congress? Rural districts make up the majority of the districts in Congress. And smaller states get disproportionate power in the senate. Rural voters have way more representation compared to urban voters in Congress and it's not close (and I'm not arguing that is a bad thing)

And then you cap it all off with a strawman built on your previous strawman. This isn’t a social justice issue, and my use of the word “minorities” was in reference to population size. Half the US population lives in 9 states. In a popular national election, people in those 9 states have as much voting power as people in the other 41 combined. That’s what the electoral college was designed to address. You can go ahead and have your opinions about that fact and whether it should or shouldn’t matter in a national election, but it’s a fact nonetheless. Representation is tailored to geography as a neutral proxy in an effort to prevent tyranny of the majority. Welcome to the Republic.

Even if we ignore all that Legio, you have to answer this question. Should other minorities get disproportionate voting power because their interests are not represented as well? What about African Americans? Latinos? What about union members? Why arbitrarily tailor disproportionate representation to geography? (Especially when geography is a far worse predictor of interests than other variables.)

Your attempted gotcha question merely reveals just how far afield you’ve taken the discussion, even from your original strawman. Worse still, it does nothing to advance whatever counterpoint you’re trying to make.

My point is that Warren and Sanders are pushing insane policies that will probably not meet with the approval of a majority. As for polls, do you remember what happened the last time a Democrat candidate consistently beat Trump in pre-election polls?

What major policies are they pushing that do not meet the approval of the majority of Americans?

[♔The Black Knight♔]

You’ve kicked off your rebuttal with a strawman.

And here you make a counter claim based on the same strawman you just tried to shoehorn my claims onto.

And then you cap it all off with a strawman built on your previous strawman. This isn’t a social justice issue, and my use of the word “minorities” was in reference to population size. Half the US population lives in 9 states. In a popular national election, people in those 9 states have as much voting power as people in the other 41 combined. That’s what the electoral college was designed to address. You can go ahead and have your opinions about that fact and whether it should or shouldn’t matter in a national election, but it’s a fact nonetheless. Representation is tailored to geography as a neutral proxy in an effort to prevent tyranny of the majority. Welcome to the Republic.

Your attempted gotcha question merely reveals just how far afield you’ve taken the discussion, even from your original strawman. Worse still, it does nothing to advance whatever counterpoint you’re trying to make.

So you claim I present a strawman and yet you do not clarify your point? Do you want to debate in good faith or simply claim victory without discussion? And also, this argument is about how the election should be shaped right?

The argument that 9 states would control the election doesn't make sense because the interests in those states are not monolithic. My interests are closer to someone living in the suburbs in another state than the farmer that lives 10 minutes from my house. They are also similar to my grandfather who IS a farmer who lives in another state. A national election that doesn't disproportionately count some over others (with arbitrary state lines) would simply level the playing field and allow a majority opinion to count rather than a minority one (as with the electoral college). Minority opinions have their place in Congress and are disproportionately represented there. How else should an election be shaped?

[Love Mountain]

My point is that Warren and Sanders are pushing insane policies that will probably not meet with the approval of a majority. As for polls, do you remember what happened the last time a Democrat candidate consistently beat Trump in pre-election polls?

You're insinuating that the polls were "wrong", but the polls were about as accurate as they always were. To add to that, you are conflating Clinton's loss with her popular appeal, but you are discounting the brilliant campaigning done by the Republican party for 2016 and 2010 Midterms.

[alhoon]

I’m not sure what exactly you’re referring to here. Political parties whip the vote pretty effectively among electors, and those who don’t go along with the popular vote usually won’t be electors for very long. Faithless electors almost always go for third parties or non-candidates, and have altered the outcome of a presidential election all of one time over 200 years ago. The idea that the electoral college is some kind of clandestine cabal of oligarchs who can do as they please simply isn’t true.

I didn't say it is, I was just saying where I disagree with your post. Yes, obviously parties would put in electors that would vote for the candidate that wins. My point is, the electors can mostly ignore popular will. They won't, but the system allows them to. Is that making the electoral college a clandestine cabal of oligarchs?
No, it makes it a party-depended cabal of oligarchs that can do as they please - for a price. Not that the office of the POTUS by itself has that much power as we saw since 2016. The POTUS alone can't do much.
PS. I thought faithless electors never changed the outcome of the elections, not once in the history of USA. Also, in 2016 six electors voted for Sanders IIRC. Most didn't vote for 3rd parties.

Why would people go to all the trouble of either going state by state to change laws, or passing a constitutional amendment, just to replace the electoral college with a set of rules that functionally serves the exact same purpose?

Because then the people elect the POTUS, they don't elect the people that elect the POTUS or could vote for anyone they like ignoring popular will - but usually don't. That way you get rid of "faithless electors".
Also, then it's damn easier to say "Wyoming votes count just x1.8 instead of x2.5"

In any case, my original point still stands:

1. The electoral college is an adjustment for population density, not a vestigial, racist apparatus.
2. Direct popular election of the president is a recipe for civil and political fragmentation, which is exactly why the college was developed in the first place.

And my point still is:
- The electoral college gives too much power to the smaller states; they already have the senate.
- Not anymore. These times have passed. Divisive politics may lead to that down the road. Abolishing the party-depended cabal of oligarchs that makes Wyoming votes x3 than Ohio or Virginia. There are better ways to deal with population disparity than electors that can be faithless.

If you get rid of the electoral college and shift to a national popular vote, 90% plus of the geographic area of the country is electorally irrelevant.

I beg to differ for a few reasons and I have a different argument to boot.
- If you shift to national popular vote, those millions of Californian Republicans suddenly count. The "Republican" parts of California, those 6 districts are bigger that Wyoming and of course, more populous. Same for the millions of Democrat Texans.
- 70% of the geographic area of the USA is already electorally irrelevant because it belongs to states that we all know what they will vote. Only battleground states count.
- "Rural" USA is not 90% of USA's geographical area. USA's mean pop density is 87/sq.mile. As you can see from this map, even if we consider "irrelevant" states that have less than 50/sq.mile the total is less than 50% of USA's geographical area.

As such, under the current system 70% of USA is already electorally irrelevant while popular vote would improve that to 40% electorally irrelevant. And let's not forget the senate that goes strictly by state.

And the different argument:
Those rural folks that live in the 40% of rural USA? They are too few. There is an argument to be made that they should be irrelevant compared to the vast majority that lives in other states.
To put it simply: If 60% of the people of USA live in Minnesota, the 40% of the people that live in the 98% of the geographic area of USA should be beholden to that large majority that lives in Minnesota. The 40% of non-Minessotans should not dictate the POTUS despite living in many empty states.

I am not 100% pro that though; As I said, there should be adjustment, but lighter.

In a popular national election, people in those 9 states have as much voting power as people in the other 41 combined. That’s what the electoral college was designed to address.

And there's the argument (made above) that yes, those people in those 9 states should have as much voting power as the other 41 combined.
It is quite bad that the people of Wyoming has as much voting power as 1/12.5 of Texas. Texas has 29 million people, Wyoming has 600 K people. And yet, those 600K Wyoming people have as much voting power as 2 million people in Texas.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So you claim I present a strawman and yet you do not your point? Do you want to debate in good faith or simply claim victory without discussion? And also, this argument is about how the election should be shaped right?

If you’re here to “win” something, that makes one of us. Your attempt to reframe the discussion regarding the origins and utility of the electoral college into a debate against a position you can “defeat” is the definition of a strawman.

The argument that 9 states would control the election doesn't make sense because the interests in those states are not monolithic. My interests are closer to someone living in the suburbs in another state than the farmer that lives 10 minutes from my house. They are also similar to my grandfather who IS a farmer who lives in another state. A national election that doesn't disproportionately count some over others (with arbitrary state lines) would simply level the playing field and allow a majority opinion to count rather than a minority one (as with the electoral college). Minority opinions have their place in Congress and are disproportionately represented there.
How else should an election be shaped?

Perhaps how it is currently? I also discussed a proposal to reform the college along Nebraska and Maine’s rules for electors. Recall your two main contentions are that I’m “making false assumptions about the population” and that “the electoral college doesn’t even work the way I say it does.” You’ve yet to tie those claims to anything I’ve assumed or said.

You’re welcome to have the opinion that attempting to hedge against the realities of geographic population concentration in a two party system is politically irrelevant or unfair. Are you suggesting the concept of electors is outdated? Or are you stating your opinion as fact?

And my point still is:
- The electoral college gives too much power to the smaller states; they already have the senate.

And there's the argument (made above) that yes, those people in those 9 states should have as much voting power as the other 41 combined.

Your assertion is based purely on the opinion you finished your post with.

- Not anymore. These times have passed. Divisive politics may lead to that down the road. Abolishing the party-depended cabal of oligarchs that makes Wyoming votes x3 than Ohio or Virginia. There are better ways to deal with population disparity than electors that can be faithless.

You already said your solution to this is to replace the college with vote multipliers that serve the exact same function, or even with rules that already exist in two states. Your justification for this solution is a hypothetical problem where a number of electors significant enough to constitute “ignoring popular will” decide to toss state rules and 250 years of precedent aside to become faithless just because they legally can.

I beg to differ for a few reasons and I have a different argument to boot.
- If you shift to national popular vote, those millionsof Californian Republicans suddenly count. The "Republican" parts of California, those 6 districts are biggerthat Wyoming and of course, more populous. Same for the millions of Democrat Texans.
- 70% of the geographic area of the USA is alreadyelectorally irrelevant because it belongs to states that we all know what they will vote. Only battleground states count.
- "Rural" USA is not 90% of USA's geographical area. USA's mean pop density is 87/sq.mile. As you can see from this map, even if we consider "irrelevant" states that have less than 50/sq.mile the total is less than 50% of USA's geographical area.

As such, under the current system 70% of USA is already electorally irrelevant while popular vote would improve that to 40% electorally irrelevant. And let's not forget the senate that goes strictly by state.

And the different argument:
Those rural folks that live in the 40% of rural USA? They are too few. There is an argument to be made that they shouldbe irrelevant compared to the vast majority that lives in other states.
To put it simply: If 60% of the people of USA live in Minnesota, the 40% of the people that live in the 98% of the geographic area of USA should be beholden to that large majority that lives in Minnesota. The 40% of non-Minessotans should not dictate the POTUS despite living in many empty states.

I am not 100% pro that though; As I said, there should be adjustment, but lighter.

I’m not sure why you’d spend so much time and effort just to motte-and-bailey your position on this. The urban democrat vs rural republican stereotype is your example not mine, and I did not say that 90% of the US is “rural America.”

It is quite bad that the people of Wyoming has as much voting power as 1/12.5 of Texas.

If, as you mention above, it doesn’t matter whether a few districts in California have more voting power than entire states and regions because “times have passed,” and that’s how things should be anyway, why should the reverse necessarily be any more problematic? If a rare split between the electoral college and popular vote favors less populous regions over more populous ones, then the college as a mechanism is doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

If you’re here to “win” something, that makes one of us. Your attempt to reframe the discussion regarding the origins and utility of the electoral college into a debate against a position you can “defeat” is the definition of a strawman.

Perhaps how it is currently? I also discussed a proposal to reform the college along Nebraska and Maine’s rules for electors. Recall your two main contentions are that I’m “making false assumptions about the population” and that “the electoral college doesn’t even work the way I say it does.” You’ve yet to tie those claims to anything I’ve assumed or said.

You’re welcome to have the opinion that attempting to hedge against the realities of geographic population concentration in a two party system is politically irrelevant or unfair. Are you suggesting the concept of electors is outdated? Or are you stating your opinion as fact?

I challenged you on your approach to the debate because you called out a straw man and didn't clarify your post. There was no attempt to reach out and try to correct what was misinterpreted. That ultimately kills discussion. To assist in getting us on the same page, I'll do my best clarify my understanding of how I approached this.

This started with Ludicus's claim that the electoral college should be abolished. You responded to his post about why the electoral college was created, and finished your post by stating that getting rid of the electoral college would likely be a trigger for a civil war. To summarize, he made a claim about getting rid of the electoral college, you countered and tried to express its purpose (and why it would be a bad idea to get rid of it), so in my mind this starts a normative argument about whether the electoral college should exist or not.

Anyways, that is when I entered to support getting rid of the electoral college. I engaged with these claims.

"Getting rid of the electoral college means coastal population centers pick the president"

My first post didn't see how this was possible. Coastal population centers are not monolithic voting blocs that share the same interests, and many people living in those coastal population centers share many interests with those outside the coastal population centers. A general popular vote would simply reward that majorities opinion as opposed to a minority opinion. The Republic still exists and the Congress (through the layout of the Senate and even the House) still disproportionately represents small states and rural districts. Surely you would think the that the a nationally elected office should be voted in by... I don't know... the majority of the population?

Anyways, you responded by saying that:

"90% plus of the geographic area of the country is electorally irrelevant"

"The only political representation these minorities would have is a few representatives in a Congress whose power is already mostly divided according to population density."

"Your inference that regional and local political cleavages should not be taken into account when governing the country categorically rejects the principle of popular sovereignty since people living outside a few major urban areas would have little or no say in who becomes president and determines national priorities."

So you said that, again, the 90% of the geographic United States would be unrepresented if the electoral college was abolished. Then you added that minorities (i assume you mean the people living in 90% of the geographic United States) would be left with little representation. Then you state that I was disregarding regional and local cleavages and that people living beyond major urban centers would have little to no say in who was becoming president.

So here you have defined what your majority is, or the faction that you feel would be empowered... Urban voters living in population centers... So I inferred that you were supporting the idea that ultimately the electoral college would help out rural voters, the people who live in the sparse geographic landscape beyond the urban population centers. Was this a bad inference?

Anyways, I argued that ultimately I felt you were making assumptions that were not true, and that it's bad to group these people together into factions (considering that geography is not what people associate with engaging in power politics) whose power dynamics should tailored in a way that promotes balance. I argued that the electoral college doesn't really help out rural voters anyways, and it disproportionately just helps small states. It makes even less sense considering that Rhode Island, a coastal urban population center, is disproportionately supported whereas a rural voter in California is under represented (living in the geographic 90%).

I then posed the question of how should we balance factions to make elections fair, if the general premise of the electoral college is supposed to protect from a tyranny of a majority. Surely making arbitrary factions grounded in geography is a poor way way to do that correct?

That's my best attempt to recap what has happened, feel free to challenge me on my understanding of your posts so that we can reach a closer understanding of each other's positions.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Surely you would think the that the a nationally elected office should be voted in by... I don't know... the majority of the population?

The president is elected by the majority of the population in each state. As I said, the electoral college is already based on population. One elector for each member of Congress. Large states still therefore have more voting power. The college reduces the disparity, it does not eliminate it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...toral_Vote.png

Anyways, you responded by saying that:


"90% plus of the geographic area of the country is electorally irrelevant"


"The only political representation these minorities would have is a few representatives in a Congress whose power is already mostly divided according to population density."


"Your inference that regional and local political cleavages should not be taken into account when governing the country categorically rejects the principle of popular sovereignty since people living outside a few major urban areas would have little or no say in who becomes president and determines national priorities."


So you said that, again, the 90% of the geographic United States would be unrepresented if the electoral college was abolished. Then you added that minorities (i assume you mean the people living in 90% of the geographic United States) would be left with little representation. Then you state that I was disregarding regional and local cleavages and that people living beyond major urban centers would have little to no say in who was becoming president.


So here you have defined what your majority is, or the faction that you feel would be empowered... Urban voters living in population centers... So I inferred that you were supporting the idea that ultimately the electoral college would help out rural voters, the people who live in the sparse geographic landscape beyond the urban population centers. Was this a bad inference?

It’s not a correct inference. That said, it’s certainly possible the small-state, large state metric correlates with urban, rural in X cases, given 9 states have as much population as the other 41 combined. The entire federal government is built on a combination of popular and state based representation, because the US is a union of states. The House is elected by popular vote, the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures, and the President is elected by a combination of the two models, since states generally make their own rules for electors. The college has pros and cons for large states and small states alike. Given that it’s a compromise between the large states and small states, it works as intended.


If this dynamic is irrelevant or unfair as you suggest and direct democracy is the way to go, then at least one of the now all popularly elected legislative and executive bodies is functionally redundant. As I said, you’re welcome to your opinion.

Anyways, I argued that ultimately I felt you were making assumptions that were not true, and that it's bad to group these people together into factions (considering that geography is not what people associate with engaging in power politics) whose power dynamics should tailored in a way that promotes balance. I argued that the electoral college doesn't really help out rural voters anyways, and it disproportionately just helps small states. It makes even less sense considering that Rhode Island, a coastal urban population center, is disproportionately supported whereas a rural voter in California is under represented (living in the geographic 90%).


I then posed the question of how should we balance factions to make elections fair, if the general premise of the electoral college is supposed to protect from a tyranny of a majority. Surely making arbitrary factions grounded in geography is a poor way way to do that correct?

The college is arbitrarily tied to the number of Congressional seats and therefore a more neutral proxy for the idea that “Nebraskan votes count for 5 times Texan votes,” yet less messy than saying “if your regional population exceeds X amount of people, your voting power is reduced by 1/Y.” Given that California still has way more electoral votes than Wyoming, the result is still majority rule. The fact that regional political cleavages aren’t much more pronounced than they are is thanks in large part to mechanisms like the electoral college.

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, since Warren and Sanders are awful all around, Biden will look more appealing to a majority of Americans. Kamala Harris, Spartacus, Beta O'Rourke, and Mayor Dumbassname are terrible candidates, too. I'd say that among the top ten highest polling candidates, Biden is the least polarizing one (with the possible exception of Yang?). The rest is all playing wacky identity politics.

Biden is likely not making it to Super Tuesday. It seems age and probably mental issues would play a big role in that.
Yang is a one-issue candidate. It seems Gabbard is the most sane one, and even though she also shares irrational phobia of guns (which is common for most Democrats) her views on foreign-policy are much more well-informed.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Tulsi’s “well informed” foreign policy is based on her alleged isolationism, correct? Foreign policy is supposed to be her signature issue. It’s why her supporters back her. Is anyone aware of specific cases where Tulsi is clearly more isolationist or non-interventionist than Warren or Sanders?

[♔The Black Knight♔]

The president is elected by the majority of the population in each state. As I said, the electoral college is already based on population. One elector for each member of Congress. Large states still therefore have more voting power. The college reduces the disparity, it does not eliminate it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...toral_Vote.png

It’s not a correct inference. That said, it’s certainly possible the small-state, large state metric correlates with urban, rural in X cases, given 9 states have as much population as the other 41 combined. The entire federal government is built on a combination of popular and state based representation, because the US is a union of states. The House is elected by popular vote, the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures, and the President is elected by a combination of the two models, since states generally make their own rules for electors. The college has pros and cons for large states and small states alike. Given that it’s a compromise between the large states and small states, it works as intended.


If this dynamic is irrelevant or unfair as you suggest and direct democracy is the way to go, then at least one of the now all popularly elected legislative and executive bodies is functionally redundant. As I said, you’re welcome to your opinion.

The college is arbitrarily tied to the number of Congressional seats and therefore a more neutral proxy for the idea that “Nebraskan votes count for 5 times Texan votes,” yet less messy than saying “if your regional population exceeds X amount of people, your voting power is reduced by 1/Y.” Given that California still has way more electoral votes than Wyoming, the result is still majority rule. The fact that regional political cleavages aren’t much more pronounced than they are is thanks in large part to mechanisms like the electoral college.

So here is the fundamental assumption I am pushing against: States are not actors, they do not vote, their citizens are not monolithic voting blocs, they do not have unique interests, and they should not be personified as being a power entity whose interests should be balanced. They are not the powerful political entities of old (the federal government has clearly triumphed in terms of power dynamics), and their populations have largely integrated with each other to the point where state lines are not representative of the factions that are competing for power. It just doesn't make sense to stick with a system that is designed to protect against something that doesn't exist anymore. What was relevant in 1787 in terms of balancing power dynamics doesn't necessary apply to today. You keep assuming that state power politics need to be balanced and I keep saying that it doesn't make sense to do so.

In a national election, the only actors that matter are the citizens of the United States. Citizens are the real actors, they actually vote, they have unique interests they can form political factions/voting blocs, and they are the one's that should be targeted by an election system if you feel that one faction disproportionately is being represented. If the electoral college did that, I would be more inclined to keep it... but it doesn't... It only balances an arbitrary power dynamic that doesn't actually correspond to real human factions that actually organize political behavior. The alternative is that we at least have a system the actually levels the playing field for the actors that actually matter in elections, the citizens.

The country has changed over time, and we are neither compelled by logic or tradition to maintain an election system that balanced arbitrary factions that don't correspond to the real factions that actually are driving for control. This isn't to say we should ignore key principles of why the electoral college was founded (and I can possibly be swayed by an alternative election system that balances current political factions), but the electoral college, as it functions right now, just provides arbitrary advantages and disadvantages based on state lines that are not relevant to interests anymore.

[Love Mountain]

So here is the fundamental assumption I am pushing against: States are not actors, they do not vote, their citizens are not a monolithic voting blocs, they do not have unique interests, and they should not be personified as being a power entity whose interests should be balanced. They are not the powerful political entities of old (the federal government has clearly triumphed in terms of power dynamics), and their populations have largely integrated with each other to the point where state lines are not representative of the factions that are competing for power. It just doesn't make sense to stick with a system that is designed to protect against something that doesn't exist anymore. What was relevant in 1787 in terms of balancing power dynamics doesn't necessary apply to today. You keep assuming that state power politics need to be balanced and I keep saying that it doesn't make sense to do so.

This assumption is wrong. From a certain modeling perspective, you have a point. Especially if you want to argue about presidential elections. However, using different models, when it comes to Congressional voting, states absolutely have, and exercise their powers, for their own interests. The same applies to presidential elections where states like Texas and California absolutely have their own distinct state identities and will shape their votes based on their own interests. This is most exemplified by analysis of Beto o'Rourke, who polls better in Texas than almost every other Democratic candidates save Biden. Clearly, those voters have a preference for a politician who comes from their own locality, why? So I disagree, states absolutely have to have a stake in balancing political power between national and local governments. The electoral college may need a rework, but it's not necessarily a bad check on populist power.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

This assumption is wrong. From a certain modeling perspective, you have a point. Especially if you want to argue about presidential elections. However, using different models, when it comes to Congressional voting, states absolutely have, and exercise their powers, for their own interests. The same applies to presidential elections where states like Texas and California absolutely have their own distinct state identities and will shape their votes based on their own interests. This is most exemplified by analysis of Beto o'Rourke, who polls better in Texas than almost every other Democratic candidates save Biden. Clearly, those voters have a preference for a politician who comes from their own locality, why? So I disagree, states absolutely have to have a stake in balancing political power between national and local governments. The electoral college may need a rework, but it's not necessarily a bad check on populist power.

So we are going to have a fundamental disagreement about conceptualizing who/what is exercising power when it comes to states. States do not exercise their powers for their own interests. Rather, politicians from those states exercise their powers for the interests of the democratic/ republican constituents that happen to fall within those borders (and their own individual selves). Beto o'Rourke can't represent Texas's interests (which don't exist, Texas isn't a person), he only can only represent the democratic constituents (or if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, all constituents) that fall within the borders of whatever position he is fighting for (and these are actual human beings with actual interests!).

So when it comes to Congressional voting, states representatives and senators are not fighting to further their own state, but rather they are fighting primarily for their individual selves (for the power and prestige of the positions they are fighting for), and in turn, they have to try to represent individual interests that are going to get them reelected. Sometimes its constituents (actual human beings) in their district/state (which may create the illusion that they are fighting for the "state".), but often times those representatives are paying attention to corporation lobbyists, interests groups and others political factions that are ultimately comprised of human beings. No state interests are being represented, only human organized factions that are important to getting that representative elected (whether they lie within the designated borders or not).

Anyways, I understand that you are likely concerned that some a candidate from a large state would have a disproportionate advantage in a popular election considering the power of identity, but I would argue that you are going to have always identities that are disproportionately going to draw in support. An African American will benefit from a larger share of African American voters, a women will benefit from a larger share of women voters, etc... The fact that we are concerned that a candidate will benefit from a larger percent of a state population seems bizarre considering we don't talk about other identities.

Finally, I would ask this, who is the President supposed to represent at the end of the day. Should the President represent an amalgamation of political factions? Well maybe we should reconfigure elections to actually balance the factions that are relevant today. Maybe the President should represent the majority will of the people? In that case, a popular vote will do. In either case the electoral college must go, or be completely redone.

[Lord Thesaurian]

As I said, you’re welcome to your opinion, but it’s based purely on your conjecture that states do not exist beyond some outmoded bureaucratic formality. The relationship between the states and the federal government is the foundation of how the government works. You can justify your dismissal of that relationship however you want, but SCOTUS already affirmed it:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."


But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. On the contrary, it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

As I said, you’re welcome to your opinion, but it’s based purely on your conjecture that states do not exist beyond some outmoded bureaucratic formality. The relationship between the states and the federal government is the foundation of how the government works. You can justify your dismissal of that relationship however you want, but SCOTUS already affirmed it:

Yes, but a constitutional amendment would render that opinion meaningless. That is ultimately what I'm arguing for even though I know it will probably not happen any time soon. I am arguing for ought we do... Like I said before, we are neither compelled by logic, tradition, or whatever to continue the old system... Why do you think we passed the 17th amendment or other political reforms?

[Lord Thesaurian]

You want to dissolve the electoral college and also apparently reverse the precedent that secession is illegal because you believe in direct democracy. You’re not proposing a constitutional amendment, you’re proposing a different country. I prefer the one I’ve got, and I don’t consider the one you’re proposing to be an improvement. There’s not much to debate about that given it’s a matter of preference.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

You want to dissolve the electoral college and also apparently reverse the precedent that secession is illegal because you believe in direct democracy. You’re not proposing a constitutional amendment, you’re proposing a different country. I prefer the one I’ve got, and I don’t consider the one you’re proposing to be an improvement. There’s not much to debate about that given it’s a matter of preference.

An amendment that abolishes the electoral college doesn't mean that the entire case is made irrelevant, it just wouldn't apply to the general election for the presidency.

Anyways, anything can be improved. Nothing is sacred... You have to admit that the system is not perfect and that it is possible to improve it. You can argue that my suggestions are not ideal, but you can't argue that what we have now is fine for perpetuity. It will need to be changed one day, and we will have to think about how we adjust our elections as our country evolves over time. May as well start thinking about what we want our elections to look like now.

[Lord Thesaurian]

An amendment that abolishes the electoral college doesn't mean that the entire case is made irrelevant, it just wouldn't apply to the general election for the presidency.

Secession is illegal except when the president is being elected? I don’t follow.

Anyways, anything can be improved. Nothing is sacred... You have to admit that the system is not perfect and that it is possible to improve it. You can argue that my suggestions are not ideal, but you can't argue that what we have now is fine for perpetuity. It will need to be changed one day, and we will have to think about how we adjust our elections as our country evolves over time. May as well start thinking about what we want our elections to look like now.

What we have now is fine in perpetuity. As states’ population becomes even more disparate, the college will become more important, not less so.


You haven’t presented any reason why your proposal to abolish the college is an improvement or what the problem is that you’re improving, other than your belief that anything short of direct democracy is unfair or something. Maine and Nebraska split electoral votes to address alleged tyranny of the majority at the state level, let alone at the national level. Dismissing the relevance of states is another matter entirely. Whatever position you had to begin with has been whittled to incoherence at this point.

[Love Mountain]

So we are going to have a fundamental disagreement about conceptualizing who/what is exercising power when it comes to states. States do not exercise their powers for their own interests. Rather, politicians from those states exercise their powers for the interests of the democratic/ republican constituents that happen to fall within those borders (and their own individual selves). Beto o'Rourke can't represent Texas's interests (which don't exist, Texas isn't a person), he only can only represent the democratic constituents (or if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, all constituents) that fall within the borders of whatever position he is fighting for (and these are actual human beings with actual interests!).

Nor do political parties in that case. If you are going to have such an absolutist definition of what constitutes a "political actor" than political parties do not have any power either. After all, neither the Democratic nor the Republican party are monolithic voting blocs down to each individual congressman who votes on a bill or each individual voter who participates in local and national elections. Yet I don't think that any political pundit or for that matter, a politician, would deny the vast importance of political parties. To that same extent, I doubt that any politician would deny the importance of each "state identity" when they campaign there. Otherwise, why are Democrats in the South often more moderate than their Northern or West Coast cousins? Why is Susanne Collins a relatively "moderate" Republican in the far north, compared to some far-right Republicans in places like Alabama?

So when it comes to Congressional voting, states representatives and senators are not fighting to further their own state, but rather they are fighting primarily for their individual selves (for the power and prestige of the positions they are fighting for), and in turn, they have to try to represent individual interests that are going to get them reelected. Sometimes its constituents (actual human beings) in their district/state (which may create the illusion that they are fighting for the "state".), but often times those representatives are paying attention to corporation lobbyists, interests groups and others political factions that are ultimately comprised of human beings. No state interests are being represented, only human organized factions that are important to getting that representative elected (whether they lie within the designated borders or not).

This again, applies to political parties. If you are going to dismiss the importance of political organizations to the extent where their double standards somehow invalidates their political affiliation, then there is no point in having any broad political discussion. Every politician is going to be beholden to their unique circumstances. But there are observations that can be made. Especially over long term or over a large sample size. Or even by anecdote. How does one explain pork barrel? What's the point of pandering to vague state interests or local job projects if such broad interests are non-existent due to the, often conflicting, collection of individual interests that such fictional "state interests" often represent?

Now I'm sure you can wring out an answer that fits your philosophical framework, but that's not really my point. For a large part of the political establishment, and the "peons" who listen to it, "state interests", which may be fictional, are a reality for these people. Maybe they are fabricated, but the broad acknowledgement of their existence gives them power, and as such, must be pandered to from time to time.

Anyways, I understand that you are likely concerned that some a candidate from a large state would have a disproportionate advantage in a popular election considering the power of identity, but I would argue that you are going to have always identities that are disproportionately going to draw in support. An African American will benefit from a larger share of African American voters, a women will benefit from a larger share of women voters, etc... The fact that we are concerned that a candidate will benefit from a larger percent of a state population seems bizarre considering we don't talk about other identities.

Actually I'm not concerned about that. What the electoral college showed us in 2016 is that it will not protect us from an absolute bumbling moron from coming into power. The electoral college needs a rework, and I'm not opposed to the "original idea" that it's supposed to represent. As a layer of protection against mob rule. However, in its current form, it has shown us over the last 20+ years, that it is not capable of fulfilling that purpose.

Finally, I would ask this, who is the President supposed to represent at the end of the day. Should the President represent an amalgamation of political factions? Well maybe we should reconfigure elections to actually balance the factions that are relevant today. Maybe the President should represent the majority will of the people? In that case, a popular vote will do. In either case the electoral college must go, or be completely redone.

The President isn't supposed to "represent" anyone. The President is supposed to be the best person for the job of running the day-to-day affairs of the country. Boiling down the presidential election to what is essentially a popularity contest among the masses doesn't really help anyone in my opinion. Then again, I am an elitist who disdains populism and democracy in general, so there is that to consider when acknowledging my answer. The Presidency involves a lot of skills, while managing public opinion and being popular are important qualities in a President, I don't think they should be the deciding ones in choosing who will be the leader for the next 4 years.

As a side note, I'm also against term limits.