mwdegutis wrote:
First, the issue with a national popular vote is that demagogues, those who ride waves of passion that override better judgment, often can rise up and take sweeping powers with a popular mandate. However, that is how liberty dies (and often with a thunderous applause, I might add).
You make a good point about popular mandates but it's misplaced because there is absolutely nothing in the electoral process that does anything to prevent them. All the electoral college does is provide a number of non-congressional voters per state based on the states congressional representation. It does nothing to govern the influence of the enumerated votes. That is left entirely up to the individual state. In fact there is something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact where states are deciding that all their electoral votes will be decided by popular vote, which means the demagoguery of the popular vote that you are so concerned about can be fed right into the electoral college.
Now here's the part you're gonna love... As a general rule based on obvious reasons, the smaller and less diverse a population is the more susceptible it will be to demagoguery and since the electoral college is designed to give smaller states, which given current demographics also happen to have least diverse populations, more sway in the national elections it's a rational conclusion that the electoral college is actually a potential amplifier for such demagoguery. And because I just can't pass this up, I'm going to add that Trump's electoral election is itself a strong argument that this is a proven theory.
mwdegutis wrote:
The Electoral College exists to protect people from themselves, and to prevent demagogues from playing off the fickle passions of the people.
Well... I've already explained how the Electoral College does nothing to stop demagoguery but can actually be a catalyst for it. But about protecting people from themselves, I find that to be somewhat insulting. Granted, a lot of people would be better off if they didn't vote. For instance, I'm pretty certain that the middle-class Americans who voted for Trump have more-or-less shot themselves in the foot, but this is the danger of democracy. It's the danger of freedom. And as disappointed as I am with those voters I stand by their right to vote how they see fit. I think it's the American choices to live with that danger. This talk about limiting our democracy to protect ourselves from ourselves just smells like loaded diapers to me. What next? Should we abolish guns too?
mwdegutis wrote:
Socialists and Fascists are experts in demagoguery, and will use any and all means available to them to exploit tragedy to advance a totalitarian political agenda.
In the spirit of our supposed distaste for demagoguery, I'm just going to point out that socialism is a really wide target for such accusations... There *IS* such a thing as democratic-socialists who are called democratic because they ARE democratic, which is to say they are the diametric opposite of tyranny. This is the type socialism that has been an integral part of the American system for over 100 years. I think what you are referring to are the nationalist movements that have taken advantage of the less-than-stable socialist revolutions such the Bolsheviks. Also... since I'm being pedantic, when you capitalize Fascism, thereby making it a proper noun, you are referring to the nationalist party in Italy led by Mussolini. If you are referring to the larger definition as exemplified by the Fascists in Italy, then you are referring to fascism.
All that being said yes, I agree. Nationalists movements, whether they're fascists or socialist or both have a reputation for demagoguery. As a matter of fact, a nationalist movement that leverages the power of demagoguery is considered by historians and students of political science to be a qualification of fascism. Add strong militant control and corporate influence and well, that's what fascism is.
mwdegutis wrote:
The Electoral College acts as a barrier by turning what would be one national election into 51 separate elections. It is much harder to win that kind of election as a demagogue than it is to win just one election nationally.
This gets back to my point about how times have changed. Your argument might have made sense back the days when ideas could spread no faster than the gallop of a horse. But that just isn't the case anymore. Today ideas spread at the speed of electricity. Media broadcasts are national and governed by the FCC, which is not a state agency but a federal agency. Then there's the Internet which has global reach, is largely ungoverned and is the home of the modern demagogue. It's utter nonsense to suggest that states offer any kind of partition or resistance to the influence of a demagogue.
This year, all 5O states and the DC were all flooded by the rhetoric of both campaigns. I've personally been to three blue states (CA, NY, NJ) and two red states (PA, TX) during the 2016 election season and I have one word to describe it all... homogeneous. Same rhetoric, same arguments, same attitudes. If there's a difference at all it's not between states but between the rural and urban regions. When it comes to the political will of the people, state borders are at best superficial and that's just one more argument for the ditching the Electoral College. Campaigns are operating at a national level so the people should be able to respond by voting at a national level.
So hop off your horse, get in the time machine and zap yourself back to the 21st century, OK? This is exactly why our constitution was designed to be amendable... because times change. This is what sets our constitution apart from other static laws like the Koran which claims to be Holy and therefore immutable. The U.S. Constitution has the power to stay relevant so long as the People have the power to see the world around them for what it is.
mwdegutis wrote:
Second, the Electoral College acts as a separation of power. If the Presidential election were merely done by national popular vote, the states would have effectively no say in the electoral process. The system as designed enables state participation in the process of electing a national official.
Quite the opposite. The Electoral College is a federal device that dictates the power that states are allowed to have. Take a look at that map you started your response with... Like I said, not entirely accurate but enough to make the point... THAT is what the elections would look like if states were allowed to run their own show. Do you really think California would volunteer on their own accord to reduce the power of their voters to a third of the power that a voter in Wyoming has? Of course not. But the states have no say because these rules that give some people more voting power than others is dictated by the Federal Government through the Electoral College.
And again, we're talking about a FEDERAL office. What business is that to a state anyway? Look, I'm an anti-Federalist, no one is more an advocate for greater state power and less federal power than I am. But I'm not an idiot, I know better than to think there is ANY value for the state in subjecting itself to the tyranny of the Electoral College.
mwdegutis wrote:
The states are a critical part of the federal system.
In electing the Executive, they must not be left out of the process (and we already killed their representation in the Senate, so now it is even more important to keep the Electoral College in place).
How exactly did we kill state representation in the Senate? That's a new one on me. As far as I know, each state still gets two senators.
mwdegutis wrote:
Third, it ensures that smaller states are not drowned out by larger ones. If the Presidential election were done by national popular vote, smaller states that occupy most of the middle United States would be neglected, totally forgotten in the process.
You know it's funny how this is the argument that I hear most often from conservatives who claim they are the ones that believe in limited government. They say they want the Federal Government to stay out of their business and being an anti-Federalist, I usually agree but when I bring up the electoral college, all of sudden they're begging for the Federal Government not to ignore them. So which is it?
Look, the federal government is designed to be limited. Most of the systems that impact the lives and the livelihood of the American people are administered at the state level and lower not the federal level, so the suggestion that they would be neglected and forgotten is pretty weak if you ask me. As far as being "drowned out" by larger states, that's another weak suggestion. As I've already said, state borders are largley superficial. They certainly don't define the concerns of the people. You might think that everyone in California is an entertainer and everyone in Montana is a rancher but that really isn't true. There is an abundance of genuine, right-wing, weather-beaten, gun-toting, God-loving ranchers in California and I happen to know a drama teacher in Montana who registers Democrat.
There is no reason whatsoever why the citizens of little states can't build coalitions with like-minded citizens of larger states or other small states to develop larger political fronts. There's no reason why all the little states can't band together to represent an equal counter to the larger states.
The problem isn't that some states have more voters... the problem is that some people can't seem to figure out how to equalize in a system where it's totally possible. They jusy continue to accept their smallness and their need to depend on the federal government. It's so submissive.
mwdegutis wrote:
The Electoral College ensures that the smaller states have a say in the election. Hence, it is democratic to have this electoral system in place.
Not even... "Democratic" means people. As in "government by the people for the people". The very word has roots in the Greek word for people, demos. State means political structure, which can be democratic or tyranical. In your arguments, you seem to be focused entirely on the state while ignoring the people. You are saying it's democratic for the Electoral College to protect the smaller states by taking power away from the people of the larger states. In an honest democracy the every voter in Wyoming would get 1 vote and every voter in California would also get 1 vote. But the Electoral College gives voters in Wyoming 3 votes while only allowing voters in California 1 vote. That is NOT democratic.
mwdegutis wrote:
Another way to look at the Electoral College is to consider it like the World Series. Sure, throughout the entirety of the series one team may score more runs than the other team, but it is the result of each game that determines the winner of the series.
Just because one team outscored the other by 100 runs does not mean that the team with the most runs wins. It is the team that wins the most games. The same principle applies to the Electoral College.
That's a horrible analogy. If the rules of the Electoral College was applied to baseball, it would look more like this... First the objective (which you completely left out of your analogy) would be to insure greater equality between teams and to accomplish this they would give the teams a number of outs per inning depending on how good they are. So a good team could only have 1 out but a lame team would get 3 outs.
You repeat a lot of your points... so, I'm just going to say I already responded to the nonsense that states (or counties or whatever geopolitical quantity you are referring to) would be forgotten. In aditional I'm going to add that are are indeed basing your arguments on geographical references which has nothing to do with demographic references. I've noticed how common this misinterpretion of democracy is on the right. They see these maps that seem entirely covered in red with some isolated splotches of blue and think it's an accurate depection of our democracy. I'll just use your own props to prove your own dellusion. Compare your first map with your second map... Notice the difference. The first one is dimensioned according to demographics... The second is is dimensioned according to geography. Well, forests and plains and mountains and deserts don't vote, people do. You are arguing that one solitary tree on a vast plain should get as much water as 500 trees in a forest of equal size.
The Electoral College, contary to the cultured ignorance of the right, is an obstruction of democracy as I have just proven in my point by point response to your right-wing rhetoric.