The basis gist of the article is that the US is as strong as ever culturally, but the US political system is getting weaker and is antiquated.
Article is way too long to post, but here's a link and quote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/201001/american-decline
QuoteWe might hope for another Sputnik moment—to be precise, an event frightening enough to stimulate national action without posing a real threat. That kind of "hope" hardly constitutes a plan. In 2001, America endured an event that should have been this era's Sputnik ; but it wasn't. It doesn't help now to rue the lost opportunity, but there is no hiding the fact that it was an enormous loss. What could have been a moment to set our foreign policy and our domestic economy on a path for another 50 years of growth—as Eisenhower helped set a 50-year path with his response to Sputnik —instead created problems that will probably take another 50 years to correct.
That's yesterday. For tomorrow, we really have only two choices. Doing more, or doing less. Trying to work with our flawed governmental system despite its uncorrectable flaws, or trying to contain the damage that system does to the rest of our society. Muddling through, or starving the beast.
Readers may have guessed that I am not going for the second option: giving up on public efforts and cauterizing our gangrenous government so that the rest of society can survive. But the reason might be unexpected. I have seen enough of the world outside America to be sure that eventually a collapsing public life brings the private sector down with it. If we want to maintain the virtues of private America, we must at least try on the public front too. Rio, Manila, and Mexico City during their respective crime booms; Shanghai in the 1920s and Moscow in the 1990s; Jakarta through the decades; the imagined Los Angeles of Blade Runner —these are all venues in which commerce and opportunity abounded. But the lack of corresponding public virtues—rule of law, expectation of physical safety, infrastructure that people can enjoy or depend on without owning it themselves—made those societies more hellish than they needed to be. When outsiders marvel at today's China, it is for the combination of private and public advances the country has made. It has private factories and public roads; private office buildings and public schools. Of course this is not some exotic Communist combination. The conjunction of private and public abundance typified America throughout its 20th-century rise. We had the big factories and the broad sidewalks, the stately mansions and the public parks. The private economy was stronger because of the public bulwarks provided by Social Security and Medicare. California is giving the first taste of how the public-private divorce will look—and its historian, Kevin Starr, says the private economy will soon suffer if the government is not repaired. "Through the country's history, government has had to function correctly for the private sector to flourish," he said. "John Quincy Adams built the lighthouses and the highways. That's not 'socialist' but 'Whiggish.' Now we need ports and highways and an educated populace." In a nearly $1 trillion stimulus package, it should have been possible to build all those things, in a contemporary, environmentally aware counterpart to the interstate-highway plan. But it didn't happen; we've spent the money, incurred the debt, and done very little to repair what most needs fixing.
Our government is old and broken and dysfunctional, and may even be beyond repair. But Starr is right. Our only sane choice is to muddle through. As human beings, we ultimately become old and broken and dysfunctional—but in the meantime it makes a difference if we try. Our American republic may prove to be doomed, but it will make a difference if we improvise and strive to make the best of the path through our time—and our children's, and their grandchildren's—rather than succumb.
"I often think about how we would make decisions if we knew we would wake up the next day and it would be 75 years later," Cullen Murphy, author of Are We Rome?, told me. "It would make a huge difference if we could train ourselves to make decisions that way." It would. Of course, our system can't be engineered toward that perspective. Politicians will inevitably look not 75 years into the future but one election cycle ahead, or perhaps only one news cycle. Corporations live by the quarter; cable-news outlets by the minute. But we can at least introduce this concept into public discussion and consider our issues and choices that way.
Yeah, Fallows wants to ditch the Senate and the electoral college. The first might have the delightful effect of eliminating farm subsidies but I don't know if it would necessarily increase the time horizon of elected officials.
Yes, the trend that has lasted since the end of the post-WW2 use monopoly continues.
The moaning about it won't fix it; relative US decline is not only inevitable, it is good for the US citizen. A more affluent world is a world with more money to spend on what the US produces so efficiently.
I bet Fallows doesn't talk about visiting Chinese universities and discovering PhD students rote-memorizing things like the "rules of memory." That wouldn't fit into his Chicken Little scenario.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2010, 09:56:39 PM
Yes, the trend that has lasted since the end of the post-WW2 use monopoly continues.
The moaning about it won't fix it; relative US decline is not only inevitable, it is good for the US citizen. A more affluent world is a world with more money to spend on what the US produces so efficiently.
I bet Fallows doesn't talk about visiting Chinese universities and discovering PhD students rote-memorizing things like the "rules of memory." That wouldn't fit into his Chicken Little scenario.
Did you read the article? One of his points is that one of the US's greatest strengths is its higher education system, especially compared to China.
"Americans often fret about the troops of engineers and computer scientists marching out of Chinese universities. They should calm down. Each fall, Shanghai's Jiao Tong University produces a ranking of the world's universities based mainly on scientific-research papers. All such rankings are imprecise, but the pattern is clear. Of the top 20 on the latest list, 17 are American, the exceptions being Cambridge (No. 4), Oxford (No. 10), and the University of Tokyo (No. 20). Of the top 100 in the world, zero are Chinese.
"On paper, China has the world's largest higher education system, with a total enrollment of 20 million full-time tertiary students," Peter Yuan Cai, of the Australian National University in Canberra, wrote last fall. "Yet China still lags behind the West in scientific discovery and technological innovation." The obstacles for Chinese scholars and universities range from grand national strategy—open economy, closed political and media environment—to the operational traditions of Chinese academia. Students spend years cramming details for memorized tests; the ones who succeed then spend years in thrall to entrenched professors. Shirley Tilghman said the modern American model of advanced research still shows the influence of Vannevar Bush, who directed governmental science projects during and after World War II. "It was his very conscious decision to get money into young scientists' hands as quickly as possible," she said. This was in contrast to the European "Herr Professor" model, also prevalent in Asia, in which, she said, for young scientists, the "main opportunity for promotion was waiting for their mentor to die." Young Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, Dutch know they will have opportunities in American labs and start-ups they could not have at home. This will remain America's advantage, unless we throw it away.""
Didn't read the article, but I concur with the summary that culturally the US is still strong and dynamic; there does appear to be a bit of a rot in the public discourse and how government function, but it's nothing that can't be fixed or managed. If the American population and political class could find a common project to unite behind and turn down the dial on partisan bickering just a few notches then the US is golden IMO.
How dare he compare the Senate to rotten boroughs. We would do better with a House of Lords? Hang that man for treason! :USA:
To have a fall you need to fall below the level of some competitor.
There is always a debate whether a body like the US Senate (the so-called "house of reflection") is necessary in a democracy or not. But if you decide to have it, it makes sense not to elect it in the same way as the lower house, as otherwise it becomes a little more than a rubber stamp.
Otoh, doing away with the electoral college is sensible - the current system is really bizarre, anti-democratic and has no rationale whatsoever.
Quote from: stjaba on January 21, 2010, 10:45:52 PM
Did you read the article? One of his points is that one of the US's greatest strengths is its higher education system, especially compared to China.
Well, I would have bet poorly then, wouldn't I? :lol:
No, I didn't read the article. Too long, and the summary didn't entice me to read more.n Just reading "our government is old and broken and dysfunctional, and may even be beyond repair" made me retch. ALL governments are old and broken and dysfunctional, unless they are new and broken and dysfunctional; that is the nature of organizations as large as governments.
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2010, 03:04:40 AM
Otoh, doing away with the electoral college is sensible - the current system is really bizarre, anti-democratic and has no rationale whatsoever.
There is absolutely no reason to do away with the EC, and many reasons to keep it. All the fixing needed is that EC delegates from each state be distributed proportional to the popular vote in each state.
No Senate? Who will keep the local systems in line?
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2010, 07:52:44 AM
There is absolutely no reason to do away with the EC, and many reasons to keep it. All the fixing needed is that EC delegates from each state be distributed proportional to the popular vote in each state.
I guess I don't see the compelling reasons for or against the EC. Only two times in our history has the EC been relevent and in both cases I fail to see what value it really added. I mean unless you consider Hayes and Bush worth it.
Since every other time the guy with the most EC votes also had the most popular votes what difference does it make?
In my mind the main argument against doing away with the electoral college is the effort it would take.
Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2010, 12:30:56 PM
I guess I don't see the compelling reasons for or against the EC. Only two times in our history has the EC been relevent and in both cases I fail to see what value it really added. I mean unless you consider Hayes and Bush worth it.
Since every other time the guy with the most EC votes also had the most popular votes what difference does it make?
The arguments in favor are finality (the margin of error is much smaller for five hundred votes than eighty million votes) and the fact that it exists as part of the Constitution.
The argument against bis that foreigners don't understand it and post absurd comments on internet discussion boards whining about its existence.
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2010, 12:36:28 PM
The arguments in favor are finality (the margin of error is much smaller for five hundred votes than eighty million votes) and the fact that it exists as part of the Constitution.
I definitely agree that there is no compelling reason to go through all the pain to change the constitution to fix what I consider a non-issue.
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2010, 07:49:25 AMALL governments are old and broken and dysfunctional, unless they are new and broken and dysfunctional; that is the nature of organizations as large as governments.
On one hand I agree with what I think you're saying, that people always bitch about the government and that usually they have a good reason for it since no system is perfect.
But still, it's not too outlandish to say that some governments are more broken than others, is it? And that any society, including the US, can govern itself in more or less broken fashion?
I mean, I understand your distaste for Chicken Little "everything is fucked" hyperbole, but when I look at things like the California situation, where they seem to have painted themselves into a corner, it does seem that there are trends towards more broken than before. Or is that just because I don't know all the messes of earlier years, and the California situation is just part of a long tradition of messes?
California is definitely broken.
Quote from: Jacob on January 22, 2010, 12:44:37 PM
I mean, I understand your distaste for Chicken Little "everything is fucked" hyperbole, but when I look at things like the California situation, where they seem to have painted themselves into a corner, it does seem that there are trends towards more broken than before. Or is that just because I don't know all the messes of earlier years, and the California situation is just part of a long tradition of messes?
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.
California is a failed state.
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2010, 12:56:37 PM
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.
:yes:
Quote from: The Brain on January 22, 2010, 04:58:21 PM
California is a failed state.
The Brain makes a good point. It would seem that grumbler equats a political unit being "broken" to a "failed state", that is a state where even the ordinary responsibilities of the political unit are not being fulfilled.
I would think that a political unit can be disfunctional and 'broken' without things resorting to anarchy.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 22, 2010, 04:58:21 PM
California is a failed state.
The Brain makes a good point. It would seem that grumbler equats a political unit being "broken" to a "failed state", that is a state where even the ordinary responsibilities of the political unit are not being fulfilled.
I would think that a political unit can be disfunctional and 'broken' without things resorting to anarchy.
I consider a political unit to be "broken" in the same way I consider anything else to be "broken." You, and others, apparently have a different (but unspecified) meaning. I willingly concede that, by the terms of your secret meaning of "broken," California is "broken."
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2010, 07:06:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 22, 2010, 04:58:21 PM
California is a failed state.
The Brain makes a good point. It would seem that grumbler equats a political unit being "broken" to a "failed state", that is a state where even the ordinary responsibilities of the political unit are not being fulfilled.
I would think that a political unit can be disfunctional and 'broken' without things resorting to anarchy.
I consider a political unit to be "broken" in the same way I consider anything else to be "broken." You, and others, apparently have a different (but unspecified) meaning. I willingly concede that, by the terms of your secret meaning of "broken," California is "broken."
Quote from: thefreedictionary.com
bro·ken (brkn)
v.
Past participle of break.
adj.
1. Forcibly separated into two or more pieces; fractured: a broken arm; broken glass.
2. Sundered by divorce, separation, or desertion of a parent or parents: children from broken homes; a broken marriage.
3. Having been violated: a broken promise.
4.
a. Incomplete: a broken set of books.
b. Being in a state of disarray; disordered: troops fleeing in broken ranks.
5.
a. Intermittently stopping and starting; discontinuous: a broken cable transmission.
b. Varying abruptly, as in pitch: broken sobs.
c. Spoken with gaps and errors: broken English.
6. Topographically rough; uneven: broken terrain.
7.
a. Subdued totally; humbled: a broken spirit.
b. Weakened and infirm: broken health.
8. Crushed by grief: died of a broken heart.
9. Financially ruined; bankrupt.
10. Not functioning; out of order: a broken washing machine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/broken
It seems to me that there are several different uses of broken, and that some would seem to support the meaning Jacob and I have ascribed. Since the meaning I am using is in the dictionary I must respectfully disagree that we are using a "secret meaning".
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 07:35:33 PM
It seems to me that there are several different uses of broken, and that some would seem to support the meaning Jacob and I have ascribed. Since the meaning I am using is in the dictionary I must respectfully disagree that we are using a "secret meaning".
Jacob ascribed to "trends towards broken," which I certainly didn't object to.
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 can actually produce the secret meaning, of course. Dunno why you have not, but maybe you get your jollies from having "secrets."
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2010, 11:25:30 PM
You claim "California is broken,"
I said no such thing. :huh:
The only thing I said in the thread before you jumped on me was:
Quote from: BarristerThe Brain makes a good point. It would seem that grumbler equats a political unit being "broken" to a "failed state", that is a state where even the ordinary responsibilities of the political unit are not being fulfilled.
I would think that a political unit can be disfunctional and 'broken' without things resorting to anarchy.
I in fact have never used the noun "California' in this thread until now.
I was only responding to your quote of:
Quote from: grumblerCalifornia'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.
And I would continue to respectfully assert that a state can be 'broken' while in a situation well short of gangs controlling the streets and no one arriving when a building catches on fire.
I do not have enough experience with the situation in California to say whether or not that state is broken or not.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2010, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2010, 11:25:30 PM
You claim "California is broken,"
I said no such thing. :huh:
The only thing I said in the thread before you jumped on me was:
Quote from: BarristerThe Brain makes a good point. It would seem that grumbler equats a political unit being "broken" to a "failed state", that is a state where even the ordinary responsibilities of the political unit are not being fulfilled.
I would think that a political unit can be disfunctional and 'broken' without things resorting to anarchy.
I in fact have never used the noun "California' in this thread until now.
I was only responding to your quote of:
Quote from: grumblerCalifornia'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.
And I would continue to respectfully assert that a state can be 'broken' while in a situation well short of gangs controlling the streets and no one arriving when a building catches on fire.
I do not have enough experience with the situation in California to say whether or not that state is broken or not.
So we have no disagreement, then. I say California is not broken, and you say that something can be broken without state services stopping. Those are not contrary positions - in fact, I explicitly agree with that hearts can be broken, vases can be broken, and records can be broken, all without state services stopping.
I mistook your response to my statement for disagreement with the statement, but now see that it was a generalized statement not directly applicable to my statement.
Glad we cleared that up.
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2010, 01:54:43 AM
So we have no disagreement, then. I say California is not broken, and you say that something can be broken without state services stopping. Those are not contrary positions - in fact, I explicitly agree with that hearts can be broken, vases can be broken, and records can be broken, all without state services stopping.
I mistook your response to my statement for disagreement with the statement, but now see that it was a generalized statement not directly applicable to my statement.
Glad we cleared that up.
Not quite.
When confronted with the statement that california was broken, you responded with:
Quote from: grumblerCalifornia'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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 22, 2010, 12:32:18 PM
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.
That's your answer to everything.
Down with the electoral college.
It does make election nights more interesting but is anti-democratic. One man one vote forever.
Quote from: grumbler on January 22, 2010, 11:25:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on January 23, 2010, 02:22:27 AM
Not quite.
When confronted with the statement that california was broken, you responded with:
Quote from: grumblerCalifornia'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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2010, 07:59:35 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 22, 2010, 12:32:18 PM
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).
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2010, 06:24:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2010, 07:59:35 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 22, 2010, 12:32:18 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2010, 06:42:27 PM
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.
Quote from: ulmont on January 23, 2010, 06:45:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2010, 06:42:27 PM
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? :yuk: We'd be better off drawing straws to pick the president.
What's wrong with 3,000 congressmen? When our country has a population of a billion, should we still have 435?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2010, 06:52:14 PM
So we go to over 3,000 congressmen? :yuk: 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.
How about we keep the current number of Congressmen, but give them a vote coefficient equivalent to the population that they represent. :licklips:
Quote from: Fate on January 23, 2010, 07:06:22 PM
How about we keep the current number of Congressmen, but give them a vote coefficient equivalent to the population that they represent. :licklips:
Dude, Fate rule. Or is that Caliga rule, or Caliga-Fate rule?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2010, 06:42:27 PM
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.
Quote from: ulmont on January 23, 2010, 07:02:54 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2010, 06:52:14 PM
So we go to over 3,000 congressmen? :yuk: 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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2010, 07:19:02 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2010, 06:42:27 PM
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.
QuoteAn 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2010, 07:32:21 PM
I would rather have less congressmen.
The ideal number of congressmen is one.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2010, 07:32:21 PM
Quote from: ulmont on January 23, 2010, 07:02:54 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2010, 06:52:14 PM
So we go to over 3,000 congressmen? :yuk: 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.
Quote from: Fate on January 23, 2010, 07:58:26 PM
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.
Let's make it 300 million so it's Super Incorruptible! :w00t:
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2010, 06:24:14 PMI 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 see where you're coming from on it but I personally would rather the Nebraskan system of splitting it so that 2 EC votes go to whoever wins the state and then the other EC are broken down by Congressional district.
QuoteI 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.
I don't know. I really dislike the Tory idea of shrinking the House of Commons. I think the US needs more Representatives.
Quote from: citizen k on January 23, 2010, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Fate on January 23, 2010, 07:58:26 PM
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.
Let's make it 300 million so it's Super Incorruptible! :w00t:
:ike:
Why should it stay at 435? When the number was set in stone a congressman represented on average 212k people. In 2010 it's 725k. In 2090 it'll be 2.5 million.
Quote from: Fate on January 23, 2010, 09:08:14 PM
Quote from: citizen k on January 23, 2010, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Fate on January 23, 2010, 07:58:26 PM
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.
Let's make it 300 million so it's Super Incorruptible! :w00t:
:ike:
Why should it stay at 435? When the number was set in stone a congressman represented on average 212k people. In 2010 it's 725k. In 2090 it'll be 2.5 million.
In 3150 it'll be one congressbeing per star system.
Quote from: citizen k on January 23, 2010, 11:20:22 PM
Quote from: Fate on January 23, 2010, 09:08:14 PM
Quote from: citizen k on January 23, 2010, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Fate on January 23, 2010, 07:58:26 PM
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.
Let's make it 300 million so it's Super Incorruptible! :w00t:
:ike:
Why should it stay at 435? When the number was set in stone a congressman represented on average 212k people. In 2010 it's 725k. In 2090 it'll be 2.5 million.
In 3150 it'll be one congressbeing per star system.
Okay, Timmah. :lmfao:
Quote from: citizen k on January 23, 2010, 11:20:22 PM
In 3150 it'll be one congressbeing per star system.
American democracy can't really function at that level. In fact, no democracy can survive the rigours of space colonization.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 23, 2010, 07:38:09 PM
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.
I think you misunderstand polling. There is no polling which will reliably tell you you are at X% of the vote. Someone whose polls showed 58% in Alaska wouldn't be make significantly different decisions about their national campaign than one at 66%.
QuoteWhen 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.
Far less so than the demarcation line in the popular vote (which would be individual votes). Pure popular vote would be a recipe for lawsuits. Winner-take-all EC would, of course, have lawsuits (we have had them in the US repeatedly). Proportional EC splits would have the same lawsuits of WTA EC, but would be more democratic because less gamed. That seems to be a balance that works.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 22, 2010, 08:48:28 AM
No Senate? Who will keep the local systems in line?
Who will hire the publicani?
Quote from: grumbler on January 24, 2010, 08:23:11 AM
Proportional EC splits would have the same lawsuits of WTA EC, but would be more democratic because less gamed. That seems to be a balance that works.
Is more democratic actually better?
Quote from: grumbler on January 24, 2010, 08:23:11 AM
I think you misunderstand polling. There is no polling which will reliably tell you you are at X% of the vote. Someone whose polls showed 58% in Alaska wouldn't be make significantly different decisions about their national campaign than one at 66%.
I disagree. Eliminating undecideds and 3rd parties, a 58% to 42% lead heading into an election means it would be a major upset to have a 16% swing in the vote and the leading candidate lose his or her second electoral vote, while it would take an even larger swing to get the third electoral vote. In the current state of affairs, where the only relevent demarcation line is 50% in most states, campaigns will often pull resources out of a state if they are 16% points down.
Quote
Proportional EC splits would have the same lawsuits of WTA EC
??? Certainly it would have more lawsuits. If California has a relatively close 52%-48% voting split now, there is little point to contest the result because even with a 1% miscount the electoral vote division would not change. But if you have a proportional system, virtually every result is going to be close to a demarcation line.
And you still have the possibility of an election winner losing the popular votes. I'm not sure your system even reduces that risk.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 24, 2010, 01:16:21 PM
I disagree. Eliminating undecideds and 3rd parties, a 58% to 42% lead heading into an election means it would be a major upset to have a 16% swing in the vote and the leading candidate lose his or her second electoral vote, while it would take an even larger swing to get the third electoral vote. In the current state of affairs, where the only relevent demarcation line is 50% in most states, campaigns will often pull resources out of a state if they are 16% points down.
A 58-42 poll result could easily reflect a 10-point difference, because of error. That wouldn't be an unprecedented change over a campaign year. In fact, 15% wouldn't be unprecedented.
I am not sure that US election laws should be built around the assumption that the average state has 3 electoral votes, either.
Quote??? Certainly it would have more lawsuits. If California has a relatively close 52%-48% voting split now, there is little point to contest the result because even with a 1% miscount the electoral vote division would not change. But if you have a proportional system, virtually every result is going to be close to a demarcation line.
And you still have the possibility of an election winner losing the popular votes. I'm not sure your system even reduces that risk.
You have a
great deal more certainty than I (I don't claim anything is certain), but your certainty is unconvincing. If California splits its popular vote 51-49%, lawsuits are highly likely in the WTA system, as the winner of the lawsuit will likely take 55 electoral votes and likely thus the election. In the proportional system, the lawsuit will only occur in the highly unlikely even that the one electoral vote that would change hands will change the outcome of the election.
The possibility of the EC winner losing the popular vote is much diminished by having the EC votes distributed proportional to popular vote, because the only way this can happen is if you get a very strange split in the popular vote between large and small states.
Quote from: grumbler on January 24, 2010, 01:53:02 PM
A 58-42 poll result could easily reflect a 10-point difference, because of error. That wouldn't be an unprecedented change over a campaign year. In fact, 15% wouldn't be unprecedented.
I am not sure that US election laws should be built around the assumption that the average state has 3 electoral votes, either.
Over a campaign
year? General elections don't last a year, but certainly in the last month of a campaign decisions are made to pull out resources in states that have poll numbers that far apart. Every presidential campaign I've seen has started with a 50 state strategy, and worked down to the handful of states that polling indicates are most competitive.
QuoteYou have a great deal more certainty than I (I don't claim anything is certain), but your certainty is unconvincing. If California splits its popular vote 51-49%, lawsuits are highly likely in the WTA system, as the winner of the lawsuit will likely take 55 electoral votes and likely thus the election. In the proportional system, the lawsuit will only occur in the highly unlikely even that the one electoral vote that would change hands will change the outcome of the election.
Certainly there would be more recounts under your system. There would likely be more lawsuits, because in the case of a close electoral college result the current system has limited the lawsuits to one or two states, while your system would open it up to a large number.
Imagine the case of the 2000 election. Gore wins the popular vote by .5%, which if that is the difference reflected in the electoral college he would win by about 3 votes--a virtual tie. In that case, the candidates could challenge the results of half the states, with more than remote hopes of success.
The electoral college results would also likely get closer in your system, because of the way the current system amplifies differences. For example, Obama got 53% of the popular vote, but 68% of the electoral college.
Quote
The possibility of the EC winner losing the popular vote is much diminished by having the EC votes distributed proportional to popular vote, because the only way this can happen is if you get a very strange split in the popular vote between large and small states.
I don't why that is true. The only time in modern US history a candidate losing the popular vote won the electoral college was a virtual tie--a difference of about .5%. In an election that close, can you really say Gore would have a distinct advantage under your system? It seems to me that either system is going to give the loser of the popular vote a solid chance of winning depending on how vote distribution breaks down.
Of course, the real problem is if this is left to the states. A few states may go with the system of awarding votes based on the congressional district results, while others go with the system of proportional awards. If that happens, all bets are off as to the "fairness" of the system. If California and New York go with the proportional system proposed by Grumbler, while the rest of the states go with the Congressional district results used by Nebraska, a Democrat is going to have an exceedingly difficult time getting elected president.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 24, 2010, 02:30:16 PM
Over a campaign year? General elections don't last a year, but certainly in the last month of a campaign decisions are made to pull out resources in states that have poll numbers that far apart. Every presidential campaign I've seen has started with a 50 state strategy, and worked down to the handful of states that polling indicates are most competitive.
Presidential campaigns often last a year, or longer. In any election system candidates are going to focus their efforts where there is the most payoff. Very few campaigns have ever had a 50-state strategy. Not even Obama really had a 50-state strategy.
QuoteCertainly there would be more recounts under your system. There would likely be more lawsuits, because in the case of a close electoral college result the current system has limited the lawsuits to one or two states, while your system would open it up to a large number.
Again, your certainty is unpersuasive. These things don't become certain because you state that they are. In fact, in a proportional system recounts will be far fewer, because the consequences of a recount are so small.
QuoteImagine the case of the 2000 election. Gore wins the popular vote by .5%, which if that is the difference reflected in the electoral college he would win by about 3 votes--a virtual tie. In that case, the candidates could challenge the results of half the states, with more than remote hopes of success.
0.5% is within the margin of error, so the assertion that Gore wins the popular vote is at best speculative. Lawsuits did erupt all over the place in the 2000 election, so having them in your scenario changes nothing.
QuoteThe electoral college results would also likely get closer in your system, because of the way the current system amplifies differences. For example, Obama got 53% of the popular vote, but 68% of the electoral college.
Yes, the current system amplifies differences. That is what I want to change. Outcomes that come closer to reflecting the peoples' will are more democratic.
QuoteI don't why that is true. The only time in modern US history a candidate losing the popular vote won the electoral college was a virtual tie--a difference of about .5%. In an election that close, can you really say Gore would have a distinct advantage under your system? It seems to me that either system is going to give the loser of the popular vote a solid chance of winning depending on how vote distribution breaks down.
I think an election system should be based on what we desire, and what is possible, rather than basing it on a handful of recent elections. If proportional EC distribution had been the rule in 2000, Bush would have won, without all the lawsuits. However, the reason to go that route isn't because it would have avoided the 2000 election fiasco, but because it would more accurately reflect the popular vote (but still allow the small-state edge installed by the framers).
Quote from: alfred russel on January 24, 2010, 02:35:18 PM
Of course, the real problem is if this is left to the states. A few states may go with the system of awarding votes based on the congressional district results, while others go with the system of proportional awards. If that happens, all bets are off as to the "fairness" of the system. If California and New York go with the proportional system proposed by Grumbler, while the rest of the states go with the Congressional district results used by Nebraska, a Democrat is going to have an exceedingly difficult time getting elected president.
I believe many of the big states, certainly New York, California and Illinois support a constitutional convention on the EC issue.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2010, 04:35:10 PM
I believe many of the big states, certainly New York, California and Illinois support a constitutional convention on the EC issue.
You don't need a convention to amend the constitution. Just hold a vote in the Senate, House, and 50 state legislatures.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2010, 04:48:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2010, 04:35:10 PM
I believe many of the big states, certainly New York, California and Illinois support a constitutional convention on the EC issue.
You don't need a convention to amend the constitution. Just hold a vote in the Senate, House, and 50 state legislatures.
Given the opposition by the smaller states, this would probably not fly.
I think a Constitutional amendment is a pipe dream for the near future. Luckily, fixing the worst problems of the EC doesn't need an amendment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2010, 04:48:52 PM
You don't need a convention to amend the constitution. Just hold a vote in the Senate, House, and 50 state legislatures.
I know but I got my story wrong. Apparently a number of states have passed a law that when states representing over 270 EC electors all have this law then they it'll come into action and will award all their electors to the winner of the national vote.