WaffleTwineFaceoff wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 10:32 am
Could a similarly clever, reductive, and purposefully misleading video be created showing people's "What the heck?" facial expressions upon learning what their lives under majoritarianism could look like? What film set would the hoops court be swapped out for? So many possibilities!
There are, in my opinion, some good food for thought ideas and discussion points floating around which don't rely on oversimplification and trite sound bites (hallmarks of our times, alas) designed to incite viewer's to react emotionally, and formulate directed path reasoning and understanding. Maybe I'm just cynical. The Quora post below goes more than puddle deep, and I'm sure many folks here can relate. YMMV. Just throwing it out there. What thinkest thou?
Culturally speaking, America is very different nowadays that it was at the time of the Constitution’s ratification circa 1787. A major difference between now and then is that, with the exception of Texans (and maybe New Yorkers), Americans see themselves as beholden to America, not the State of Minnesota or the State of Louisiana, or what have you.
This is exceptionally apparent during a reading of the preamble of America’s original, failed government, The Articles of Confederation, which is as follows. The delegates agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The Constitution was seen by many, not as the framework of a new country, but as an exceptionally strong alliance between 13 independent countries. In fact, in many ways, the Constitution was a precursor to the European Union. Now, with the context of the previous information, I’d like to present a thought experiment.
Imagine that you are at the Constitutional Convention as a representative of one of the smaller colonies, like Georgia or Vermont. What motivation would you have to join this alliance, if you all but knew that the law of your land would be determined by the citizens of states of New York and Virginia? There would be no point. Instead of forming a new country in conjunction with the larger colonies, you would become a new territory of said larger colonies; your people would lose any political voice that they had under your colony’s government.
Enter the Electoral College. (And more importantly, the bicameral legislature, but that’s not relevant to the purposes of this answer.) The Electoral College existed as an incentive for the smaller states to join the newly formed country, while at the same time, not screwing over the larger states, by giving them the same power as the smaller states. It was revolutionary, and more importantly, it gave this great nation the opportunity to exist in the first place, and by doing so, the Electoral College achieved its primary function, only two years after its inception.
However, today, and especially after the elections of 2000 and 2016, many people have lost sight of the original purpose of the Electoral College, and have entertained it’s abandonment in favor of a presidential election that is won by the candidate who simply obtains more votes than everyone else. What many people haven’t realized is that this movement exists due to a large cultural shift in which Americans no longer see themselves first and foremost as citizens of their own states, but as Americans. The cultural divide no longer is built on state lines, and instead on the rural/urban dichotomy. Someone who lives on Lake Street in Minneapolis has more in common with someone who lives in another Midwestern city, like Chicago, than someone who lives in a rural part of their own state.
Which brings us back to the issue of the Electoral College, which still accomplishes its purpose, but often leaves some groups, like northern New Yorkers, urban Texans, and Southern Illinoisans, without a voice. These groups of people have different policy wants and needs than people in other parts of their state, however, because of the Electoral College, candidates only pander to their ideological different peers.
However many people get ahead of themselves and use this disenfranchisement as an argument for the total abolition of the Electoral College. This is a terrible idea. Abolition of the Electoral College would bring to the national stage the issues it creates at the state level. Candidates could win elections by promising policies that would only benefit people who live in densely populated areas, but would hurt everyone else. The result would be a classic example of the axiom, “The candidate who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s vote.” This is why the Electoral College needs reform, not abandonment.
While there are many ways to go about this, my personal suggestion is that we adopt a blend between our current system and a proportional system of election, similar to Canada’s. The current Electoral College awards each state electoral voters based on its total congressional representation. For example, my home state of Minnesota has 10 electoral votes, two for each of its senators, and eight for its eight congressional districts. My proposal would entail each state awarding two electoral votes based on which candidate won the state as a whole, which each of its remaining electoral votes would be awarded corresponding to who won each of its congressional districts. This system, which I call ‘District+Two Representation’ (D+2R), would simultaneously maintain fair representation of each state, and give both urban and rural voters a voice in our federal leadership.
Please note, that while this sounds difficult to implement, it is not impossible. The Constitution gives each state the right to award its electoral votes by whichever method the state desires. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, have taken advantage of this, and award their electoral votes in similar fashion to my D+2R plan.
If it so desired, the federal government could incentivize states to implement this via federal funding, or through the much more difficult, yet more binding method of a constitutional amendment. I am a fan of the second one far more than the first, however the first is far more practical given our current political climate. While this system has weaknesses, namely Gerrymandering, it would be an excellent compromise between the current Electoral College, and a simple popular vote.
Yes, that's the fatal flaw.
Get rid of gerrymandering and this sort of compromise makes some sense. Absent that, though, it simply doesn't.
That said, I disagree about the fear of a Presidential election resulting in candidates espousing policy positions that a majority of Americans would support (yeah, I know that common sense gun reforms supported by a majority of Americans freaks you out in specific). Having the singularly national positions of President and VP won by the slate whose aggregate positions are favored by the most Americans is entirely sensible, IMO. There are plenty of other checks and balances, including two Senators for each state regardless of population size, to create the sort of representation of differing states' own majority views that one could be interested in maintaining. Likewise, individual protections against harm of various sorts and in favor of various liberties are subject as well to class action in the courts and are an essential element not having anything to do with the Electoral College.
What we have now, IMO, is dangerously close to enshrining minority rule in America, which flies in the face of the principles of democracy and IMO increases the chances of violent instability...or violent suppression of majority preferences.