President Joe Biden

[SebastianBlue]

That's right- also happened famously in 2000. Which certainly doesn't sit right to any of us. But on the other hand, Trump got more votes in 89% of counties in 2016. Would it be reasonable for HRC to become President winning a plurarity of votes in just 11% of counties - purely because they happen to be urban centers with huge population densities? Ultimately, US is a union of states, each of which has its own state laws and state governments and the constitution decrees that all should have a say in the federal government election.

I do not quite understand your point.

Are you saying that it would be perfectly fine to become president only having received about 25% of the popular vote because the state systems of government themselves, or the counties, rather than the citizens, should be equally represented?

Your point seems to be that it would be unfair for the majority of people to have more say than the majority of land area but I imagine I am misunderstanding.

 

[lasereyes]

I do not quite understand your point.

Are you saying that it would be perfectly fine to become president only having received about 25% of the popular vote because the state systems of government themselves, or the counties, rather than the citizens, should be represented?

Your point seems to be that it would be unfair for the majority of people to have more say than the majority of land area but I imagine I am misunderstanding.

25% would clearly be outrageously unfair. But it's a complete corner case. In almost all "electoral inversions" when the winner has lost the popular vote, it has been a couple of % points.

The electoral college argument is not about majority of land area. It is about giving representation to all states in the union. Basically, the US government is constitutionally very different from UK. It is organized as a collection of states with a so-called federal system of government that divides power between the national and the state/local governments (see link below). You can think of it like a United Nations where each country gets a vote regardless of its size. I'm not arguing for or against it - just that it is somewhat consistent with the US constitution.

Out of interest, is there a major country in the world that decides its election by 1 person 1 vote? Certainly not the UK. And PR systems like STV don't simply count the popular vote either,

The Federal System of Government

A federal system of government is one that divides the powers of government between the national (federal) government and state and local ...

www.lawteacher.net

.

 

[SebastianBlue]

25% would clearly be outrageously unfair. But it's a complete corner case. In almost all "electoral inversions" when the winner has lost the popular vote, it has been a couple of % points.

The electoral college argument is not about majority of land area. It is about giving representation to all states in the union. Basically, the US government is constitutionally very different from UK. It is organized as a collection of states with a so-called federal system of government that divides power between the national and the state/local governments (see link below). You can think of it like a United Nations where each country gets a vote regardless of its size. I'm not arguing for or against it - just that it is somewhat consistent with the US constitution.

Out of interest, is there a major country in the world that decides its election by 1 person 1 vote? Certainly not the UK. And PR systems like STV don't simply count the popular vote either,

The Federal System of Government

A federal system of government is one that divides the powers of government between the national (federal) government and state and local ...

www.lawteacher.net

.

I generally understand the Electoral College, mate. Well, as much as any non-legal and/or constitutional scholar can, really. ;-)

I live in the US and have taken quite an interest in American government and elections since coming here, so do not need additional information. I understand how it differs to our system of government (and Spain’s, as I am also from there).

I was merely providing insight as to why it does not necessarily perform the function you were originally referencing in the post I responded to. The corner case I linked to is a good review of the possible issues with it — less extreme outcomes are possible and are *still* highly problematic. I think the Electoral College method is flawed — and a straight popular vote is flawed — as are most all direct or indirect democratic election methods.

Your response just seemed to be arguing that land area was more important than people, so I wanted to clarify.

FWIW, when I asked a professor friend that teaches American Government here in the states if they had a good primer for the Electoral College, they sent me this (among other links about the structure/process itself) — I found it very helpful.

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

The Founding Fathers had something particular in mind when they set up the U.S. presidential election system: slavery

time.com

By the way, as you seem very interested in American politics, as well, if you haven’t already, I would give 538 a look. Every now and then they provide probabilities for winning based on popular vote scenarios for Biden and Trump — in the context of practical Electoral College outcomes — and they are quite enlightening.

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

538 uses statistical analysis — hard numbers — to tell compelling stories about elections, politics, economics, and American society.

fivethirtyeight.com

This is the last one I saw which I shared in here:

Was just coming on to post this, as well, which goes some way to better explaining the range of potential outcomes within the constraints of the US president electoral system to those outside of the US without a more deep interest or understanding of the system. This shocks my family when I try to explain it to them, for example (enough that my great uncle thought I was making it up).

 

[lasereyes]

Thanks bud - turning in for the eve - will take a look at your posts tomorrow and respond. Have a good one.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Thanks bud - turning in for the eve - will take a look at your posts tomorrow and respond. Have a good one.

Have a good night, mate.

 

[cjn]

The electoral college was instituted to ensure all parts of the country had a say in the Presidential election. If you had a purely popular vote system, then a candidate could win by racking up huge margins in a few big states like California, New York, etc. I'm not saying it's a particularly good system - just giving the historical rationale which I don't find to be totally crazy.

Oh I understand the rationale, I just find it extremely weak in the modern era. It's an artifact of when state pride and interest outweighed the larger national project, where if you were from Virginia you considered yourself Virginian first and American second. And while I'm a proud New Yorker, that isn't a thing anymore. Now the electoral college is just a means of advantaging the Republican party.

 

[cjn]

Biden has already released his tax returns, right?

Thought so...

I don't know if this is a serious question or not but yes, you can go look at them on his website if you'd like.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Funny was discussing this with a friend today. I honestly don't see any good that has come from the CPFB. Just seems like one more government bureacracy. I dont see consumers being protected or benefitting in any way. I might be missing something in my bubble so interested in your thoughts.

Given the industry I operate in (finance) and having a lot of shall we say connectivity to one one of the firms most caught up in the CFPB’s initial casting of nets, my heart agrees with you. However, the idea of protecting consumers broadly from the vagaries of more unscrupulous financial institutions — especially non-bank lenders (and ESPECIALLY pay day lenders) in a world where financial products proliferate rapidly and faster than Treasury or financial regulatory bodies can keep up with them makes good sense to my head . . . if the agency is run properly. The agency was used to punish the wrong-doers of the late 2000s (an issue which spurred a lot of Warren’s demagoguery) but is hopefully better-designed to prevent future wrongdoing IMO which is where it’s real worth will be. I can of course understand how and why one might be skeptical about such an outcome.

 

[SWP's back]

I like whoever was taking questions from the campaign.

 

[SWP's back]

Didn’t take long for the ads.