How America Can Rise Again- Interesting Atlantic Article

[Neil]

You claim "California is broken," and then refuse to say what you mean (claiming merely that there are many meanings for the term).  Since the meaning you are using is not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 in the list you presented, it must be Spinal Tap's secret "broken goes to 11."  I have conceded that already.

You are either lying or stupid, or possibly both.  California is sundered and incomplete, as the Baja California remains outside of its borders.  I suggest you become smarter before trying to speak on things of which you know nothing.

[grumbler]

Not quite.

When confronted with the statement that california was broken, you responded with:

California's governmental systems are less resilient and able to adapt to economic adversity than others, but no one is starving, gangs haven't taken over the cities, and people arrive when buildings catch on fire.  So, no, it isn't "broken" except in the hyperbolic sense.

Now it may be that you are imprecise on what you mean by the term 'broken', but it would appear to me that when applied to a political unit you mean that in order for a political unit to be broken there must be:

-people starving
-gangs taking over the streets; and/or
-people not arriving when buildings catch on fire

As far as I can tell, while all three of those conditions may well apply to a failed state, none of those conditions might necessarily apply to a 'broken' state.  So, we can see that I do directly disagree with your statement about what requirements are necessary to call California a broken state.

In other words:

While I am not certain whether or not California is 'broken', the questions you posed in rejecting whether or not California is broken are not the proper questions that must be considered in trying to determine that question.

Ah, I understand.  You don't get the concept of illustrative examples, and thought that, when I gave these examples, they described every possible condition that would create a broken California.  Your assumption is incorrect.  If your point is that there could be circumstances besides the ones I listed, I absolutely agree.  You are disagreeing with a point I never made.

Glad we cleared that up.

[grumbler]

In my mind the main argument against doing away with the electoral college is the effort it would take.

Interestingly I believe 30-something states have all agreed to call for a Constitutional Convention about the electoral college when a certain number of states do something.  Pass a resolution saying they don't want it.

I like the EC, though I think it should be run as it is in Nebraska.

I think most states have agreed to some kind of Electoral vote proportional distribution, provided the other states go along (because splitting votes when other states don't makes your state seem less important to the candidates).  The Maine/Nebraska system is certainly within the spirit of the EC, but I think a straight proportional split will be even better (as Nebraska split its vote in 2008 4-1 for McCain, even though Obama got 43% of the state's vote).

[alfred russel]

In my mind the main argument against doing away with the electoral college is the effort it would take.

Interestingly I believe 30-something states have all agreed to call for a Constitutional Convention about the electoral college when a certain number of states do something.  Pass a resolution saying they don't want it.

I like the EC, though I think it should be run as it is in Nebraska.

I think most states have agreed to some kind of Electoral vote proportional distribution, provided the other states go along (because splitting votes when other states don't makes your state seem less important to the candidates).  The Maine/Nebraska system is certainly within the spirit of the EC, but I think a straight proportional split will be even better (as Nebraska split its vote in 2008 4-1 for McCain, even though Obama got 43% of the state's vote).

I actually disagree with you fairly strongly on this. I like the most common electoral college system of winner take all, and think a second best option would be a straight popular vote. The worst is a straight "proportional" split.

Why is the proportional system the worst? You still preserve the disproportionate influence of small states, but introduce the element of how the votes are divided. You can't actually divide electoral votes proportionally--how I guess you would divide the votes, alaska with 3 votes would give the same number (2) to a candidate with 51% of the vote as with 66%. I assume 67% would get all 3. But different states could use different methods. It becomes difficult to understand and would result in recounts and legal disputes in many more states.

[ulmont]

I actually disagree with you fairly strongly on this. I like the most common electoral college system of winner take all, and think a second best option would be a straight popular vote. The worst is a straight "proportional" split.

You know, it would be easy enough to neuter the disproportionate impact of the small states.  Just increase the size of the House of Representatives to the constitutionally allowed maximum - one per 10,000 people.

When Wyoming gets 54 electoral votes from house members, the extra 2 from senators aren't going to matter.  Also eliminates gerrymandering potential.

[alfred russel]

I actually disagree with you fairly strongly on this. I like the most common electoral college system of winner take all, and think a second best option would be a straight popular vote. The worst is a straight "proportional" split.

You know, it would be easy enough to neuter the disproportionate impact of the small states.  Just increase the size of the House of Representatives to the constitutionally allowed maximum - one per 10,000 people.

When Wyoming gets 54 electoral votes from house members, the extra 2 from senators aren't going to matter.  Also eliminates gerrymandering potential.

So we go to over 3,000 congressmen?  We'd be better off drawing straws to pick the president.

[Fate]

What's wrong with 3,000 congressmen? When our country has a population of a billion, should we still have 435?

[ulmont]

So we go to over 3,000 congressmen?  We'd be better off drawing straws to pick the president.

No.  3,000 congressmen would be roughly 1 per 100,000 people.  We'd be at 30,000 if we went to the constitutional limit.

3,000 is a reasonable number.  Or, put another way, if you're running in a district of 100,000 people, you can meet practically all of them that are interested in meeting you, and you can do a lot with effort and work to get elected rather than with straight advertising and money.  If you're running in a district of 650,000, it's all about the Benjamins.

3,000 would result in less corrupt politics and allow greater citizen participation.

[Fate]

How about we keep the current number of Congressmen, but give them a vote coefficient equivalent to the population that they represent. 

[ulmont]

How about we keep the current number of Congressmen, but give them a vote coefficient equivalent to the population that they represent. 

Dude, Fate rule.  Or is that Caliga rule, or Caliga-Fate rule?

[grumbler]

I actually disagree with you fairly strongly on this. I like the most common electoral college system of winner take all, and think a second best option would be a straight popular vote. The worst is a straight "proportional" split.

Why is the proportional system the worst? You still preserve the disproportionate influence of small states, but introduce the element of how the votes are divided. You can't actually divide electoral votes proportionally--how I guess you would divide the votes, alaska with 3 votes would give the same number (2) to a candidate with 51% of the vote as with 66%. I assume 67% would get all 3. But different states could use different methods. It becomes difficult to understand and would result in recounts and legal disputes in many more states.

The current system is the worst possible, because it can result in Presidents losing the popular vote but, because of strategic campaigning, winning the electoral college.  It is gamed, and that is bad for democracy.

An EC with proportional vote splitting could be implemented instantly, but still retains the slight bias in favor of smaller states that was deliberately built into the system by the framers.  It is pretty easy to say that their work was a mistake, but good luck demonstrating that - and the burden of proof IS on you.  Proportional splitting of the EC vote is not contrary to the intentions of the framers (who never stipulated any such thing; it evolved into place over time with the political parties).  There would be no legal challenges because there would be nothing to challenge: there is no mandate specifying how the votes must be apportioned.

The second-worst system would be a straight popular vote; that way lies madness:  the margin of error in a national vote would be on the order of 1-2%, and a national recount would be hugely expensive if the vote was close. Legal disputes would be legion.

[alfred russel]

So we go to over 3,000 congressmen?  We'd be better off drawing straws to pick the president.

No.  3,000 congressmen would be roughly 1 per 100,000 people.  We'd be at 30,000 if we went to the constitutional limit.

3,000 is a reasonable number.  Or, put another way, if you're running in a district of 100,000 people, you can meet practically all of them that are interested in meeting you, and you can do a lot with effort and work to get elected rather than with straight advertising and money.  If you're running in a district of 650,000, it's all about the Benjamins.

3,000 would result in less corrupt politics and allow greater citizen participation.

You are right--30,000 congressmen. I shouldn't do math in my head.

I would rather have less congressmen. The politicians that would theoretically fill in the extra spots--city council members and state legislators--don't have a reputation for being less corrupt. More congressmen = more people thinking up stupid laws.

[alfred russel]

I actually disagree with you fairly strongly on this. I like the most common electoral college system of winner take all, and think a second best option would be a straight popular vote. The worst is a straight "proportional" split.

Why is the proportional system the worst? You still preserve the disproportionate influence of small states, but introduce the element of how the votes are divided. You can't actually divide electoral votes proportionally--how I guess you would divide the votes, alaska with 3 votes would give the same number (2) to a candidate with 51% of the vote as with 66%. I assume 67% would get all 3. But different states could use different methods. It becomes difficult to understand and would result in recounts and legal disputes in many more states.

The current system is the worst possible, because it can result in Presidents losing the popular vote but, because of strategic campaigning, winning the electoral college.  It is gamed, and that is bad for democracy.

All of those things would still be present in your system. If I am polling at 58% in Alaska before the election, I can ignore the state. 66%? Lets buy TV time and pick off that extra voter.

An EC with proportional vote splitting could be implemented instantly, but still retains the slight bias in favor of smaller states that was deliberately built into the system by the framers.  It is pretty easy to say that their work was a mistake, but good luck demonstrating that - and the burden of proof IS on you.  Proportional splitting of the EC vote is not contrary to the intentions of the framers (who never stipulated any such thing; it evolved into place over time with the political parties).  There would be no legal challenges because there would be nothing to challenge: there is no mandate specifying how the votes must be apportioned.

When I said there would be legal challenges and recounts, I meant over the results of the election. Take California--virtually any election result would be close to a demarcation line determining to whom an elector would be awarded.

[Neil]

I would rather have less congressmen.

The ideal number of congressmen is one.

[Fate]

So we go to over 3,000 congressmen?  We'd be better off drawing straws to pick the president.

No.  3,000 congressmen would be roughly 1 per 100,000 people.  We'd be at 30,000 if we went to the constitutional limit.

3,000 is a reasonable number.  Or, put another way, if you're running in a district of 100,000 people, you can meet practically all of them that are interested in meeting you, and you can do a lot with effort and work to get elected rather than with straight advertising and money.  If you're running in a district of 650,000, it's all about the Benjamins.

3,000 would result in less corrupt politics and allow greater citizen participation.

You are right--30,000 congressmen. I shouldn't do math in my head.

I would rather have less congressmen. The politicians that would theoretically fill in the extra spots--city council members and state legislators--don't have a reputation for being less corrupt. More congressmen = more people thinking up stupid laws.

Less congressmen = each congressman is more likely to be bought off by lobbying interests.

Not even Goldman Sachs has enough lobbyists to influence 30,000 congressional votes.