tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post6595634759804881879..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: The Electoral College: Just Like Any Other LegislatureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-37948002999912008102008-11-25T04:23:00.000-08:002008-11-25T04:23:00.000-08:00In the above, "proportional representation" s/b "t...In the above, "proportional representation" s/b "the geographically weighted representation of the Congress" or some such. "Divied" s/b "divvied." <BR/><BR/>We regret the errors.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, the point is fairly simple: people don't make the EC objections against Congress b/c the two ought to have different theories of representation at work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-87265637591257886532008-11-25T04:19:00.000-08:002008-11-25T04:19:00.000-08:00In the popular imagination, the Congress is a body...In the popular imagination, the Congress is a body of proportional representation, divied out by state. The President is the branch of nationwide popular vote. So the Congress represents regions, the President the nation.<BR/><BR/>There. Mystery solved as to why people - me included - oppose the EC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-23928350238367682682008-11-11T00:29:00.000-08:002008-11-11T00:29:00.000-08:00I'd have to say that this sounds more like an argu...I'd have to say that this sounds more like an argument in favor of Proportional Representation than an argument for keeping the Electoral College.<BR/><BR/>Which, as a libertarian, I support wholeheartedly (and in fact happened to endorse in the same post where I called for getting rid of the Electoral College).perfectlyGoodInkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03909562941005842228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-49014984176894823052008-11-09T17:55:00.000-08:002008-11-09T17:55:00.000-08:00the U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoi...the U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."<BR/><BR/>The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.mvymvyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07860792846652677912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-24153222631625552012008-11-09T17:50:00.000-08:002008-11-09T17:50:00.000-08:00Neither of the two most important features of the ...Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election. <BR/><BR/>In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.mvymvyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07860792846652677912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-13680016460412361932008-11-09T10:31:00.000-08:002008-11-09T10:31:00.000-08:00"Plurality wins" is one goal for what we..."Plurality wins" is one goal for what we'd like a voting system to do (at least when most votes go to one of the top 2 candidates), but it's not the only goal. If there's a good reason for breaking that standard, then it could be okay to compromise and break it.<BR/><BR/>For a legislature, we want each member to represent a specific geographically-defined set of people, and we want voters to consider the individual person, not just the party. We can't do both of those things and guarantee that the plurality vote-getting party wins a plurality of seats (at least not without a convoluted system), so we've given up on guaranteeing that plurality wins. With specific policies, we've decided that information demands are too high to go directly by voters' opinions, so for the most part we leave things up to the elected legislature. When electing a single executive, none of those reasons apply, and you & Don Boudreaux haven't mentioned any others that might outweigh plurality wins.<BR/><BR/>Also, people do complain about the Senate, but those complaints are limited by the fact that there's no realistic chance of changing it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-41543106598033582052008-11-08T20:20:00.000-08:002008-11-08T20:20:00.000-08:00You think I don't recognize you, Trumpit, but I do...You think I don't recognize you, Trumpit, but I do.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-83534748354395768822008-11-08T20:05:00.000-08:002008-11-08T20:05:00.000-08:00If citizens wants to maximize their clout, so to s...If citizens wants to maximize their clout, so to speak, as a voter then they have uproot themselves, or be uprooted, and move to a place that has a shifting/transitional majority. This just happened in North Carolina that just went for Obama. My brother, a liberal democrat from the east coast, was transferred by his corporate employer to religiously conservative No. Carolina. He went along with the program, and even bought a new 4-bedroom house to ease the pain. He said it would be a "career killer" not to obey corporate headquarters. So much for personal choice and freedom in this world ruled by multi-national corporations. Freedom has to take a backseat to more pressing concerns like the size of one's bank account. Money was the controlling factor that made my brother become a transplanted southerner. The more money you have, the more you get to control. More than "Take up the flame!", you need to answer, "How high?" when your master tells you to jump. What does freedom mean to you, and where do you find it? I'm almost too afraid to ask.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-65222703679466742222008-11-08T20:04:00.000-08:002008-11-08T20:04:00.000-08:00But representative democracy produces efficiencies...But representative democracy produces efficiencies; there are benefits to having specialized representatives whose job it is to study the issues and negotiate with each other. The electoral college doesn't have these benefits; its sole effect is to skew the results we'd get from a one-tiered vote where everyone's vote counted equally. (Technically speaking, many states don't require their electors to vote for the candidates they're electors for, but insofar as that's relevant, it's simply a further argument <I>against</I> the electoral college.)<BR/><BR/>But yeah, I agree that it's annoying that the Senate gives such undue weight to small states, and also that D.C. doesn't have any votes in Congress.Ranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01369980917358096502noreply@blogger.com