Art. I, Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.
Easier than amending the Constitution, but a requirement nonetheless.
And although this sounds straight-forward, I'm not sure SCOTUS would play along. They've been pretty (irrationally) picky with the whole 'structure of government' thing, in a variety of different cases (state term limits on representatives from that state, line-item veto, etc.).
3: Because the laws incorporate a provision saying it won't start until enough states sign on. Drat. You could still spin that as not precisely an agreement, but more of a condition precedent for the law to function, but that strikes me as quibbling.
3 - well, just doing that all on its own, of course not. I was referring to the whole 'interstate compact', not taking effect until enough states sign on, aspect of it.
But "the consent of Congress" doesn't mean a constitutional amendment, does it? Congress could pass an ord'nary bill permitting this, and then it can go forward.
I doubt that'll happen, because I think the Electoral College tends to favor Republicans by overweighting all those sparsely populated Western states. But maybe all the Senators from little bitty non-swing states would be interested in having their voters' voices heard.
Other problems: we don't have a nationalized election process. We have a bunch of state elections. So how does one state pledge its electors to the winner of the "national" election?
What I mean is: what if it's a close call? Who recounts, and how? Moreover, what if one state doesn't like/trust the voting machinery, or the voting officials, etc., in another state? (I'm thinking 2004/OH or 2000/FL as just two examples.) Suppose they think under a fair vote-count with fair voting procedures (no intimidation/working machines), the other candidate would have won. Must they send their electors to vote for the "winning" candidate nonetheless? What if some other state doesn't trust CA's new paperless machines?
There's a lot that would need to be worked out here, even assuming you could get past the legal hurdles.
8: The advantage there is that the chance of a meaningfully close popular vote is much smaller than that of a close vote in any state. Even in 2000, all of the disputed votes added together didn't come close to the popular vote difference -- I don't think we've ever had an election where the winner of the popular vote was close to being in doubt.
Not that it's impossible, but that it's much less likely.
7 - yes, its much easier than amending the Constitution. But I think it would be harder than one might otherwise expect.
And I still think by far the biggest hurdle would be getting this past SCOTUS. They seem to really, really dislike innovative workarounds of the Constitution in the name of good governance. Their opinion, in a wide variety of different cases, seems to be: if it's a good idea, amend the Constitution and do it. The practical difficulty of doing this hasn't seemed to sway them (yet), though they're of course acutely aware of it.
9 - I recognize that, and I guess states could just accept that answer, and trust other states to act in good faith. In fact, on reflection, that's probably fine. I was just thinking that if I were a state signing on to this thing, I would want some assurances of election quality/standards in the other states. But maybe this isn't so important.
And I still think by far the biggest hurdle would be getting this past SCOTUS.
Con law is not my strong point, but I can't see an argument that this is impermissible. The constitution allows legislatures to pick their electors however they please -- it could be contingent on the lottery numbers for election day. Tying it to the state election results is, as far as I know, completely optional under Art.II Sec.1, right?
For some reaason I have floating around in my head the fact that in the early years of the republic, electors were chosen by state legislatures. No idea what relation this bears to actuality.
OK, OK, what about this? The electors are chosen so that they're preportionate to the percentages of the state's popular vote that went to a given president. E.g., if Colorado has 4 electors (I don't know if it does) and the Republican candidate gets around 25% of the vote, then they send one elector for the republican candidate.
I think this is a better strategy, because then it makes sense for candidates to campaign in a state they won't get a majority in, in case they can gain one or more electoral votes from it. Whereas that's not really true with LB's idea from the NYer, because electors are tied to a much, much broader swath of people.
The agreement not to trigger until 270 electoral votes sign on is a clever one, but with the close elections we've had in the last 20 years, it still leaves the system open to perverse effects from those states that haven't signed on.
Even with the trigger, it seems there's big collective action problems. It's much better for the dominant coalition in each state to keep the status quo while encouraging other states to join the agreement.
This TNR piece listed a couple potential problems when Colorado was voting on whether to adopt this unilaterally.
12- The point is not that you can't make good (convincing, even) arguments that this should be allowed under the letter of the law, it's that the Court seems to look, hard for reasons to throw out these sorts of devices. And the counter-argument isn't hard to spin in this case: "Art. 1 doesn't contemplate natioanl elections, it contemplates state elections. Fundamental principles of federalism, blah blah founding fathers. This scheme effectively transforms a state election process into a national election process, which is against the spirit of the process set forth in the Constitution, without going through the trouble of amending the Constitution. This may be a great idea, hell it probably is, but the Constitution has imbedded in it very specific mechanisms for amending it. They've been used before, and they work. It's a difficult process and a high threshold on purpose, because that's the way the Founding Fathers set things up. You can't go using back-handed sneaky methods to get around the Constitutional process. If you want to change it, amend it."
Yes I understand the other orator would be crying and wailing that they're not changing anything, that they're following the rules as given, that the Founding Fathers set up the system to give the states freedom to choose electors however the hell they wanted, etc. And I'm not saying this is a bad arguement at all, I just think SCOTUS, if precedent is any guide (which with two new justices it admittedly may not be), would be unsympathetic.
That suffers from a unilateral disarmament problem. If Texas passes such a law, and NY doesn't, then the Republican gets 60% of TX electors, and the Democrat gets 100% of NY electors and 40% of TX electors, and the Democrat wins in a walk. It'd be a good system, but everyone would have to do it simultaneously. (Well, Maine does something similar already.)
CW, you seem to start off by talking about LB's proposal, but then the article about the Colorado proposal, which was actually not what LB was talking about, but what I was talking about. Or am I confused here?
CW, you seem to start off by talking about LB's proposal, but the article you linked to is about the Colorado proposal, which was actually not what LB was talking about, but what I was talking about. Or am I confused here?
To 20: While I agree with you about SCOTUS's attitude generally, your suggested argument falls apart at this point: "Art. 1... contemplates state elections." A carefully placed "Does not!" would, I think, blow it out of the water.
Have the comments boxes here at unfogged been sucking donkey balls for everyone??? I thought it was just me. Foe weeks it's been miserable; errors on literally every comment I post.
Was 25 a joke? I really can't quite tell. If so, it was funny. If not, I think your "does not" would be hard to sustain:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
28 should have gone on to say: ...especially in light of our history. Sure, you could maybe interpret the Constitution as meaning something else, but no one ever has, including the people who wrote it.
Not a joke, but based on a misreading. I looked at where you said Art. 1, and assumed you'd said Art. II. The response would have to not simply be "Does not" but "Sure, Art. I does. That makes it all the more pointed that Art. II doesn't."
Under the standard Haunting Theory interpretation, he can't fully leave the blog until we figure out what important business of his remains undone, and complete it for him.
Sure, you could maybe interpret the Constitution as meaning something else, but no one ever has, including the people who wrote it.
Not so -- there was at least one state choosing its Presidential electors without reference to a state election up to the Civil War (see here, pages 5-6.)
pdf - the link was about unilateral adoption. My point was that the trigger at 270 electoral votes may reduce but not eliminate the problem. With really tight elections prevalent, having a couple states in your column that haven't joined the agreement would be a significant advantage. So it would still be quite difficult to enact the agreement. Which gets us right back to a level of commitment that matches constitutional amendment.
My point was that the trigger at 270 electoral votes may reduce but not eliminate the problem. With really tight elections prevalent, having a couple states in your column that haven't joined the agreement would be a significant advantage.
You're gettign the math wrong. If 270 electoral votes are all pledged to the winner of the popular vote, they put the winner of the popular vote over the top absolutely regardless of what the other states do. Even if all the other states go the other way, the winner of the popular vote wins, because they have 270 electoral votes.
Yes. The entire site is very, very slow. I haven't gotten error messages, though. I just get a blank box when I post a comment (about 2/3 of the time). Hitting 'back' twice, and then 'refresh' makes it show up, but it's annoying.
If 270 electoral votes are all pledged to the winner of the popular vote, they put the winner of the popular vote over the top absolutely regardless of what the other states do
No, this would take 1/0.51 * 270 = 529.4. Given that there are currently 538 electoral votes, this would require all but a handful of states to participate.
If you're referring to the "Khomeini-style," during Khomeini's funeral, the crowd surged and knocked his body from the bier, prompting a frenzy where thousands tried to grab a piece of his shroud and damn near tore the body to bits.
I've been wondering if ogged is still giving you all editorial feedback. His online persona makes me think he's the kind of guy who'd bow out but keep up a steady stream of emails reacting to posts.
I guess the only reason I've been wondering is because you're doing a great job with the site. The content is great, the comment pages remain fun. Keep up the great work!
??? There are 538 electors -- 270 is a clear victory. I don't follow your math.
If 270 electoral votes commit to the system and the popular vote among those states splits 51/49, then neither party will come close to winning based on this new formula. Either party would need a substantial number of votes from all or nothing states to win.
On the other hand, if you require enough states to commit such that a candidate could win from the popular vote states only, then all but 8 electoral votes must be signed on to the agrement. That doesn't put the trigger for the new agreement much below the level of a constitutional amendment.
I've been wondering if ogged is still giving you all editorial feedback.
Minimal -- I'm sure he still reads, but he's not puppet-mastering. (Much.) And thanks! I've been wildly insecure about our running the place into the ground.
if ogged is still giving you all editorial feedback
I hear from him, but not much in the way of editorial feedback. During one of the sexism threads, he did chide a couple of us for being insufficiently antagonistic toward the laydeez.
CW: You're misunderstanding what they're agreeing to do. Virginia, say, agrees that if Donald Duck wins the national popular vote, then Duck gets all of VA's electors, even if not a single person in VA votes for him. So if states representing 270 electoral votes agree to support the winner of the national popular vote, the winner of the national popular vote gets those 270 electoral votes and wins the election absolutely regardless of what any other states do.
CW, I think you're misunderstanding LB's proposal. It's not to allot the state's electoral votes proportionally based on popular vote totals, it's to give all the state's electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Thus, say, Gore in 2000 would have gotten all the electoral votes of the states that had signed on, not just 50.3 percent of them.
Oh, I did misunderstand the proposal. I thought it was simply a triggering mechanism for these internal changes to assigning electoral college votes.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that system flying with legislatures or the voting public. I can imagine the demagogic commercials already: "Democrats want Texas to give away its vote. They say we should base our state's vote for the president on the decisions of voters in New York and California. Is this democracy? Vote no on referendum X/ Call your legislator today."
54: Not that there aren't other problems with it, but the idea is you wouldn't be phoning up Texas first. You'd be getting together a lot of populous blue states plus a coupla swings.
You'd be getting together a lot of populous blue states plus a coupla swings.
This assumes that blue staters would be less concerned about the reverse argument. Do you want your EC votes (partially) determined by Oklahoma? I think that's a tough sell.
I also worry that the cure is worse than the problem. Once you base EC votes on events outside the state, I'd worry that opens the door to complex provisions that bias the outcome in subtle ways. It's a bit opaque, and so it makes me nervous.
I'm really fucking tired of the institutional conservatism of the US.
On a related subject, what does everyone think about the merits/demerits of a coalitional type of government, with lots of small parties, compared to having two or three powerful ones? I've heard people say it creates a lot more legislative inertia. True? Is it desirable, overall?
Being contrarian by nature, I actually like the two-party system. It forces groups to form large coalitions to govern instead of effectively retreating into single issue advocacy. Moreover, it has proven remarkably stable.
But I'm quite aware that I am in the minority with view.
60: Does your affection extend to approving of a electoral system that effectively locks out third parties (except in major times of upheaval), then, or would your ideal be a government where third parties have a chance, but don't end up having as much appeal as a handful of dominant, broad-platform parties?
Well, I'm kind of agnostic on that question, absent electoral process specifics. I'm not intrinsically averse to IRV and the like; on the other hand, I don't think they will help 3rd parties nearly as much as their partisans believe.
55/21: As I understand, what Maine/Nebraska do is they award2 votes to the overall winner plus 1 each to the winner in each Congressional District. They haven't wound up splitting any votes recently, I don't think (Nebraska doesn't really have any Dem-leaning districts as I understand it, and Maine only has two districts so it's hard to win the state without winning both districts; though I think one of its districts is slightly swingy.)
I kinda like the electoral college. Without I think even the swing states would be useless and ignored, and now the candidates have to pretend they like Michigan and Ohio and other places at least.
I am for legislative inertia. Why would I want the government to be able to fuck things up efficiently?
I am for legislative inertia. Why would I want the government to be able to fuck things up efficiently?
Interesting. I think of this as what used to be a standard centrist Republican (maybe not even centrist) trope. It's also roughly my position. Dems really, really had a Come to Jeebus moment in the '90s.
Without I think even the swing states would be useless and ignored, and now the candidates have to pretend they like Michigan and Ohio and other places at least.
I don't follow. Wouldn't the campaigning just go where the people are? Lots of people in Ohio.
If you want to think about this without reference to the partisan dimension (which I, for real-world purposes, would not, but for here, let's try it), then you really do, per 67 and 68, have to decide whether you think U.S. federalism deserves any respect or not.
AFAIK, U.S. federalism is entirely unique; nobody else has ever looked at a Constitution that allows the national legislature to draw regular enclosed curves on the map, call them "states", and thus augment the representation in the Senate by two, even if nobody lives inside the confines of those curves, and said yeah, we're borrowing that. Notice how carefully I'm not naming any states -- but there are some with two Senators, and only one Congressman. What (since the proper pronoun isn't "who") do those Senators represent? (Insert snide comment: "rocks?" "oil?")
If you think there's any merit to this system, you should keep the Electoral College or some variant of it. If not, not.
That said, to repeat, I think the argument here is always going to be the unilateral disarmament one -- you go first.
I really hate the electoral college. Part of it is just the principle of thing, but part of it is feeling like my vote doesn't count. My first presidential election vote was in 2000, when I was living in Texas. I voted for Nader because I was quite certain that voting for Gore would accomplish exactly nothing. And I was right. Bush got something like 70% of the vote.
I think institutions like the electoral college decrease voter turnout because they contribute to the idea that your vote doesn't really matter. There's been some cross-national research showing that many of the political institutions in the U.S.--bicameralism, two-party system, winner-take-all--contribute to lower voter turnout. In theory, don't we want more people to vote and feel invested in the government?
you think U.S. federalism deserves any respect or not.
Pretty much, no. There is something fundamentally dimwitted about a system in which the law is different depending on which side of the Hudson River you're standing on. Regional interests, schmegional interests -- if someone can come up with a regional interest that someone from NYC shares with someone from the Finger Lakes region, that separates the two of them from someone in Newark, I'll be awfully surprised.
Federalism was historically necessary at the founding of the nation, but after the Civil War we should have abolished it and made the states administrative regions.
71: Disagree entirely. Particularly after the last five years, I want as many in-built institutional powers (like states) vying for power with the Executive. I'm terrified of a world in which the bumfucks in Alabama get to tell me what my blue city should be like.
I actually think there's a good deal of merit in having states be relatively independent in certain ways. You actually get to have states try out new policies that wouldn't be politically feasible at the national level. But channeling national elections through the states' legislatures is wrong.
There's always more people in urban areas. And it's going to be cheaper, more efficient, etc., to try to win over urban areas because there's lots of voters in one place. Why would I bother stumping all over Smallville, OH when I can concentrate on a couple of the cities and pick up the same amounts of voters? If it's just a straight popular vote, I should tailor my message to big cities, and focus on getting people out to vote. Leads to a different set of policy issues and wide swatches of smaller concerns being ignored.
I'm seeing this leading to messages that focus pretty much on cities and ignore rural areas.
I'm seeing this leading to messages that focus pretty much on cities and ignore rural areas.
Well, NH and IA are going to get less in the way of retail politics, certainly, but it's not like rural Texans are getting any love now. I'd expect advertising to hit rural areas pretty much in proportion to their populations.
Net gain's somewhat irrelevant. For now, that's totally cool, as the cities seem sane and generally favorable to the sorts of politics that allow me to buy birth control, have a job, and such. But I don't think it's always going to be that way, looking at some fast growing cities in the South and West.
Rural areas are always going to have fewer people (I continue the trend of stating the obvious), but they represent a pretty important viewpoint, and I really don't like the idea of policy completely ignoring farmers & the like because they aren't a voting base.
71-75: I'm in the minority on this, but I don't like federalism regardless. Mostly, I don't like it as a lawyer; I never thought about it much before law school. Maybe I'll try to put together a post on it.
What SCMT said. Our Senate also disproportionately favors small rural areas. And any group can form unions/trade organizations to lobby for their interests. And - rural areas aren't exactly reaping large political benefits from this imbalance, economy-wise, unless we're talking about bridges to nowhere in Alaska and the like, which are really more for the contractors anyway. Meanwhile, are cities could certainly use some more federal dollars, especially where education is concerned. The Shame of the Nation being what it is.
81: I was going to make the same post as Tim, using 'disproportionate to population' for 'outsized'. Why should rural interests be considered at a level disproportionate to rural population?
LB, I'm with you on federalism. I'm really fascinated by it because it seems so archaic in the context of other advanced postindustrial democracies. I have no data on this, but I would think it would be inefficient because you have to replicate bureaucracy. pdf23ds lists the only advantage to federalism I can think of (policy innovation at the state level, which is actually, broadly speaking, one of my research interests).
Cala has said, answering 84, "because they represent a pretty important viewpoint", but that explanation just doesn't go far enough for me. Why does that justify giving them more of a vote? I think the standard here should be pretty high.
Would the rural interested not represented by significant lobbying groups already, who would be somewhat disenfranchised were we to abolish the senate, be worse off than similar minority urban groups that don't currently have any such favor structurally?
Maybe we should start by reforming our primary system. I mean, really, Ohio? Rhode Island? South Carolina? You've had your turn. Let some other states go first for once.
I responded and I think it ate my comment. Anyhow. I don't think the trade-off is between over-represented rural interests (which we have now) and proportionally represented rural interests. I think it's between over-representation and practically no representation for rural interests, because I can't see why anyone would bother trying to scrounge 200,000 rural/small town votes when they could do the same more efficiently in a big city. They only bother now because scrounging those votes could win the whole state. (Scrounge for 200k, get counted for 1 million.)
And I think it would be a bad thing if "President" just meant "the dude all the cities liked." We know from the last election that cities tend to vote the same. It's not great now, but I think it's more balanced than it would be. At least the whole nation has to be considered.
Here is a question that is in a deep and difficult sense an un-American thing to ask, but perhaps for precisely this reason we should prepare a very good answer for it, if possible:
"Why should rural interests be represented? Shouldn't governments represent people, and not interests?"
And I think it would be a bad thing if "President" just meant "the dude all the cities liked." We know from the last election that cities tend to vote the same. It's not great now, but I think it's more balanced than it would be. At least the whole nation has to be considered.
But, but, it wouldn't be just the dude that all the cities liked. George Bush won the popular vote to the tune of three million or so last time. It's not like the cities are the only places voting. Most Americans live in the suburbs or exurbs, anyway.
To expand, what would really be so different about a popular vote model when it comes to how campaigns are run? The presidential candidate would physically campaign in different places? Who cares? What percentage of the electorate actually goes to those rallies? And what percentage of that number is undecided?
It's all about television these days anyway, and the major media markets would all still be saturated, as they pretty much are now (except maybe California). I just don't see how campaigns would be run that differently in any real way, except that the candidates would maybe go to different places, which happens every four years anyway, since the "battleground states" change with every cycle.
As for governance, it might be the case that cities would get more of the federal dough that was usually earmarked for Florida or whatever, but how is that a loss? One or two states shouldn't get quicker disaster relief or fatter crop subsidies because they happen to be swing states.
I agree that television gets everywhere. This is about the message. Right now candidates care about Ohio & other swing states, even if they don't go there, because the 10K vote difference might mean a whole pile of electoral votes. The message has to be targeted to that area. That means someone's going to have to learn about that area, and what issues are important there, etc.
If it's just the popular vote, then all I need is another 10K votes. Why try for Ohio? Either party can scrounge 10K or 20K votes by kicking its base a little harder. Scare up some more homophobia, scare up some more Supreme Court boogie men. Burned out Rust Belt? Flyover.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't see either party really giving a damn about Ohio (insert other boring swing state here) otherwise.
Except Ohio has twenty electoral votes for a reason - it's a big state, with lots of voters worth winning. And if rural votes counted across state boundaries, there would be a lot of them. Understanding that is why Walmart is as ginormous as it is today. Rural votes would still be able to swing elections, but Ohio's rural vote wouldn't be able to do so.
Cala, I think I can frame it differently. "Targeting message to some area" = "pandering." Steel tariffs, Yucca Mountain, corn subsidies for Iowa, that sort of thing. Also, note that Bush screwed California with impunity because there was no way that they were voting him. Ditto New York on 9/11 reconstruction and Homeland Security.
As for "either party can scrounge 10K to 20K more votes by kicking its base a little harder," that obviously can't work for both parties at once. Sometimes the best way to get more votes will be to get more swing voters to vote for you. Probably most of the time.
(And candidates go to swing states all the time. The best thing that ever happened to Presidential campaigns was the high-speed ferry across Lake Michigan -- get from Michigan to Wisconsin without touching yucky Illinois and Indiana!)
91: "un-American thing to ask... Why should rural interests be represented? Shouldn't governments represent people, and not interests?"
I don't think this is un-American at all. Think of the one-person/one-vote principle, which applies to most all elections nowadays. Originally, states were allowed to deviate from one-person/one-vote for good reasons (such as providing effective representation of minority interests, including rural interests and the like). But reasons for deviation are, for the most part, no longer considered by the courts, and one-person/one-vote is seen as an end in itself, rather than as a means to prevent gerrymandering, etc.
The Constitutionally-mandated deviations from one-person/one-vote are upheld--rather strictly, as people have noted--but the reasons underlying them are seldom even considered outside of those specific contexts. For the most part, the courts don't allow protection of interests any more.
I assure you, we are witnessing the last throes of the insurgent. Why, that he would resort to such a desperate measure is the very measure of his desperation. Last one to agree hates the troops.
Sorry, guys, the hosting company is acting up and refusing to return emails. The Unfogged-Borg is engaged in discussions of how to purchase our own satellite from which to ensure uninterrupted service.
Now that googling the site is broken, we'll see whether anyone actually remembers anything, or if the whole operation depends on access to a search engine. Wasn't FL the Green Lantern? I can't remember anymore....
I swear I'm not being a contrarian... and I'm not really sure how I feel about the abolition of the EC... but I do think that Cala has a point with respect to rural populations, if one agrees that the EC shifts some power away from urban areas and into rural areas. If that's true, then there's a case to be made that the abolition of the EC would lead to even greater developmental disparities between such regions. This inequality in wealth, health, education, and so forth, would not only be stimulative of social instability, but strikes me as fundamentally contradictory to the democratic spirit.
A democracy involves, after all, not simply a majoritarian principle, but protections for minorities as well. Such protections ought go beyond protections of civil rights, and should include access to sufficient political power to sustain a fair amount of economic and social support.
But you can move from the rural areas to the cities, so your lot is not wholly predestined by your geographical location. Also, rural areas as single group would still carry a lot of weight, so you should still get policies aimed at rural areas as such. You would get fewer policies aimed at rural Kentucky as such. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing. It seems as if most arguments against the abolition of the EC hew, if silently, to some Jeffersonian (IIRC) notion of the agragarian lifestyle as the bedrock of our national ethos.
A free society is about the consent of the governed. The losers must acknowledge the legitimacy of the process, and feel they not only are protected, but actually have something to gain by participating. Even 10-20% who feel they have nothing at stake can bring a country down. This is very hard for a majority to accept. Sometimes I think the US 2-party system is a mistake for it conflates coalition with consensus, and misinterprets legitimacy. Legitimacy is granted by the minorities, not appropriated by a majority.
The EC stays. It is essential to our understanding of democracy.
Legitimacy is granted by the minorities, not appropriated by a majority.
I'm willing to agree with that, but it isn't really responsive. It's a question of how we structure the important minorities, or if we even should. Right now we privilege small state minorities and intrastate rural minorities in a way that we don't privilege any others. What's so special about them?
Art. I, Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.
Easier than amending the Constitution, but a requirement nonetheless.
And although this sounds straight-forward, I'm not sure SCOTUS would play along. They've been pretty (irrationally) picky with the whole 'structure of government' thing, in a variety of different cases (state term limits on representatives from that state, line-item veto, etc.).
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:56 AM
I'm guessing that it won't go through LB. Why? Because the people aren't voting, the legislatures are. But the proposal? Awesome.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 8:56 AM
1 doesn't make sense to me. How does it constitute an agreement with another state to pledge your own electors to the winner of the popular vote?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:01 AM
3: Because the laws incorporate a provision saying it won't start until enough states sign on. Drat. You could still spin that as not precisely an agreement, but more of a condition precedent for the law to function, but that strikes me as quibbling.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:04 AM
3 - well, just doing that all on its own, of course not. I was referring to the whole 'interstate compact', not taking effect until enough states sign on, aspect of it.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:04 AM
I understand now.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:05 AM
But "the consent of Congress" doesn't mean a constitutional amendment, does it? Congress could pass an ord'nary bill permitting this, and then it can go forward.
I doubt that'll happen, because I think the Electoral College tends to favor Republicans by overweighting all those sparsely populated Western states. But maybe all the Senators from little bitty non-swing states would be interested in having their voters' voices heard.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:10 AM
Other problems: we don't have a nationalized election process. We have a bunch of state elections. So how does one state pledge its electors to the winner of the "national" election?
What I mean is: what if it's a close call? Who recounts, and how? Moreover, what if one state doesn't like/trust the voting machinery, or the voting officials, etc., in another state? (I'm thinking 2004/OH or 2000/FL as just two examples.) Suppose they think under a fair vote-count with fair voting procedures (no intimidation/working machines), the other candidate would have won. Must they send their electors to vote for the "winning" candidate nonetheless? What if some other state doesn't trust CA's new paperless machines?
There's a lot that would need to be worked out here, even assuming you could get past the legal hurdles.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:13 AM
8: The advantage there is that the chance of a meaningfully close popular vote is much smaller than that of a close vote in any state. Even in 2000, all of the disputed votes added together didn't come close to the popular vote difference -- I don't think we've ever had an election where the winner of the popular vote was close to being in doubt.
Not that it's impossible, but that it's much less likely.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:17 AM
7 - yes, its much easier than amending the Constitution. But I think it would be harder than one might otherwise expect.
And I still think by far the biggest hurdle would be getting this past SCOTUS. They seem to really, really dislike innovative workarounds of the Constitution in the name of good governance. Their opinion, in a wide variety of different cases, seems to be: if it's a good idea, amend the Constitution and do it. The practical difficulty of doing this hasn't seemed to sway them (yet), though they're of course acutely aware of it.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:19 AM
9 - I recognize that, and I guess states could just accept that answer, and trust other states to act in good faith. In fact, on reflection, that's probably fine. I was just thinking that if I were a state signing on to this thing, I would want some assurances of election quality/standards in the other states. But maybe this isn't so important.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:22 AM
And I still think by far the biggest hurdle would be getting this past SCOTUS.
Con law is not my strong point, but I can't see an argument that this is impermissible. The constitution allows legislatures to pick their electors however they please -- it could be contingent on the lottery numbers for election day. Tying it to the state election results is, as far as I know, completely optional under Art.II Sec.1, right?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:27 AM
For some reaason I have floating around in my head the fact that in the early years of the republic, electors were chosen by state legislatures. No idea what relation this bears to actuality.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:30 AM
A tight one.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:32 AM
Woo-hoo!
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:34 AM
And Scalia at least emphasized in oral argument that there is no constitutional right of suffrage in Presidential elections.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:35 AM
Coughassholecough.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:36 AM
OK, OK, what about this? The electors are chosen so that they're preportionate to the percentages of the state's popular vote that went to a given president. E.g., if Colorado has 4 electors (I don't know if it does) and the Republican candidate gets around 25% of the vote, then they send one elector for the republican candidate.
I think this is a better strategy, because then it makes sense for candidates to campaign in a state they won't get a majority in, in case they can gain one or more electoral votes from it. Whereas that's not really true with LB's idea from the NYer, because electors are tied to a much, much broader swath of people.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:49 AM
The agreement not to trigger until 270 electoral votes sign on is a clever one, but with the close elections we've had in the last 20 years, it still leaves the system open to perverse effects from those states that haven't signed on.
Even with the trigger, it seems there's big collective action problems. It's much better for the dominant coalition in each state to keep the status quo while encouraging other states to join the agreement.
This TNR piece listed a couple potential problems when Colorado was voting on whether to adopt this unilaterally.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:57 AM
12- The point is not that you can't make good (convincing, even) arguments that this should be allowed under the letter of the law, it's that the Court seems to look, hard for reasons to throw out these sorts of devices. And the counter-argument isn't hard to spin in this case: "Art. 1 doesn't contemplate natioanl elections, it contemplates state elections. Fundamental principles of federalism, blah blah founding fathers. This scheme effectively transforms a state election process into a national election process, which is against the spirit of the process set forth in the Constitution, without going through the trouble of amending the Constitution. This may be a great idea, hell it probably is, but the Constitution has imbedded in it very specific mechanisms for amending it. They've been used before, and they work. It's a difficult process and a high threshold on purpose, because that's the way the Founding Fathers set things up. You can't go using back-handed sneaky methods to get around the Constitutional process. If you want to change it, amend it."
Yes I understand the other orator would be crying and wailing that they're not changing anything, that they're following the rules as given, that the Founding Fathers set up the system to give the states freedom to choose electors however the hell they wanted, etc. And I'm not saying this is a bad arguement at all, I just think SCOTUS, if precedent is any guide (which with two new justices it admittedly may not be), would be unsympathetic.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:58 AM
That suffers from a unilateral disarmament problem. If Texas passes such a law, and NY doesn't, then the Republican gets 60% of TX electors, and the Democrat gets 100% of NY electors and 40% of TX electors, and the Democrat wins in a walk. It'd be a good system, but everyone would have to do it simultaneously. (Well, Maine does something similar already.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 9:58 AM
CW, you seem to start off by talking about LB's proposal, but then the article about the Colorado proposal, which was actually not what LB was talking about, but what I was talking about. Or am I confused here?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:01 AM
21 to 18, I presume, and I was about to say the same thing.
Of course there are no potential Constitutional problems with such a system, which is a bonus.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:02 AM
CW, you seem to start off by talking about LB's proposal, but the article you linked to is about the Colorado proposal, which was actually not what LB was talking about, but what I was talking about. Or am I confused here?
(Posting troubles... sorry in advance)
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:02 AM
21 to 18.
To 20: While I agree with you about SCOTUS's attitude generally, your suggested argument falls apart at this point: "Art. 1... contemplates state elections." A carefully placed "Does not!" would, I think, blow it out of the water.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:03 AM
(Posting troubles... sorry in advance)
Have the comments boxes here at unfogged been sucking donkey balls for everyone??? I thought it was just me. Foe weeks it's been miserable; errors on literally every comment I post.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:05 AM
It's been cranky. I'm a complete parasite on the site technically -- Becks and Wolfson, and still ogged to an extent, are keeping it running.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:09 AM
Was 25 a joke? I really can't quite tell. If so, it was funny. If not, I think your "does not" would be hard to sustain:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:11 AM
28 should have gone on to say: ...especially in light of our history. Sure, you could maybe interpret the Constitution as meaning something else, but no one ever has, including the people who wrote it.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:14 AM
Not a joke, but based on a misreading. I looked at where you said Art. 1, and assumed you'd said Art. II. The response would have to not simply be "Does not" but "Sure, Art. I does. That makes it all the more pointed that Art. II doesn't."
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:16 AM
still ogged to an extent
Under the standard Haunting Theory interpretation, he can't fully leave the blog until we figure out what important business of his remains undone, and complete it for him.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:22 AM
Sure, you could maybe interpret the Constitution as meaning something else, but no one ever has, including the people who wrote it.
Not so -- there was at least one state choosing its Presidential electors without reference to a state election up to the Civil War (see here, pages 5-6.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:24 AM
31: He never did get around to beating me up.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:25 AM
important business of his remains
We scattered his remains, SB. It is finished.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:25 AM
We scattered his remains
You don't mean, Khomeini-style?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:28 AM
pdf - the link was about unilateral adoption. My point was that the trigger at 270 electoral votes may reduce but not eliminate the problem. With really tight elections prevalent, having a couple states in your column that haven't joined the agreement would be a significant advantage. So it would still be quite difficult to enact the agreement. Which gets us right back to a level of commitment that matches constitutional amendment.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:31 AM
I carry my piece of his shroud every day. In my pants.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:31 AM
34: As long as it wasn't on a poppyseed muffin.
(NB. I don't understand SB's joke, so it's possible this is redundant. I hereby preemptively acknowledge my autopwnation if so.)
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:33 AM
My point was that the trigger at 270 electoral votes may reduce but not eliminate the problem. With really tight elections prevalent, having a couple states in your column that haven't joined the agreement would be a significant advantage.
You're gettign the math wrong. If 270 electoral votes are all pledged to the winner of the popular vote, they put the winner of the popular vote over the top absolutely regardless of what the other states do. Even if all the other states go the other way, the winner of the popular vote wins, because they have 270 electoral votes.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:35 AM
comments boxes here at unfogged been sucking
Yes. The entire site is very, very slow. I haven't gotten error messages, though. I just get a blank box when I post a comment (about 2/3 of the time). Hitting 'back' twice, and then 'refresh' makes it show up, but it's annoying.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:36 AM
If 270 electoral votes are all pledged to the winner of the popular vote, they put the winner of the popular vote over the top absolutely regardless of what the other states do
No, this would take 1/0.51 * 270 = 529.4. Given that there are currently 538 electoral votes, this would require all but a handful of states to participate.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:43 AM
I don't understand SB's joke
If you're referring to the "Khomeini-style," during Khomeini's funeral, the crowd surged and knocked his body from the bier, prompting a frenzy where thousands tried to grab a piece of his shroud and damn near tore the body to bits.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:44 AM
and still ogged to an extent
I've been wondering if ogged is still giving you all editorial feedback. His online persona makes me think he's the kind of guy who'd bow out but keep up a steady stream of emails reacting to posts.
I guess the only reason I've been wondering is because you're doing a great job with the site. The content is great, the comment pages remain fun. Keep up the great work!
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:48 AM
Ah, then my joke about dispensing with Ogged by cheesegrating him and then sprinkling him on baked goods was not, in fact, redundant! Pwned, I am not!
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:48 AM
41-
??? There are 538 electors -- 270 is a clear victory. I don't follow your math.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:50 AM
Yeah I think hardly any of Khomeini's remains wound up in baked goods.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:51 AM
??? There are 538 electors -- 270 is a clear victory. I don't follow your math.
If 270 electoral votes commit to the system and the popular vote among those states splits 51/49, then neither party will come close to winning based on this new formula. Either party would need a substantial number of votes from all or nothing states to win.
On the other hand, if you require enough states to commit such that a candidate could win from the popular vote states only, then all but 8 electoral votes must be signed on to the agrement. That doesn't put the trigger for the new agreement much below the level of a constitutional amendment.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:56 AM
I've been wondering if ogged is still giving you all editorial feedback.
Minimal -- I'm sure he still reads, but he's not puppet-mastering. (Much.) And thanks! I've been wildly insecure about our running the place into the ground.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:57 AM
if ogged is still giving you all editorial feedback
I hear from him, but not much in the way of editorial feedback. During one of the sexism threads, he did chide a couple of us for being insufficiently antagonistic toward the laydeez.
you're doing a great job with the site
Aww, thanks!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:58 AM
Also, this ignores effects from third party candidates, which the TNR piece points out rise significantly with a populat vote system.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 10:59 AM
CW: You're misunderstanding what they're agreeing to do. Virginia, say, agrees that if Donald Duck wins the national popular vote, then Duck gets all of VA's electors, even if not a single person in VA votes for him. So if states representing 270 electoral votes agree to support the winner of the national popular vote, the winner of the national popular vote gets those 270 electoral votes and wins the election absolutely regardless of what any other states do.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:02 AM
CW, I think you're misunderstanding LB's proposal. It's not to allot the state's electoral votes proportionally based on popular vote totals, it's to give all the state's electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Thus, say, Gore in 2000 would have gotten all the electoral votes of the states that had signed on, not just 50.3 percent of them.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:03 AM
Having narrowly missed Weinerpwnation before, I walked right into it this time.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:04 AM
Oh, I did misunderstand the proposal. I thought it was simply a triggering mechanism for these internal changes to assigning electoral college votes.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that system flying with legislatures or the voting public. I can imagine the demagogic commercials already: "Democrats want Texas to give away its vote. They say we should base our state's vote for the president on the decisions of voters in New York and California. Is this democracy? Vote no on referendum X/ Call your legislator today."
Nice idea to prompt debate, though.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:08 AM
21: You all forgot about Nebraska (when you mentioned Maine)! Also the only state with a unicameral legislature.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:09 AM
cw, that's actually a great script. Get Ward Connerly on the phone!
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:11 AM
54: Not that there aren't other problems with it, but the idea is you wouldn't be phoning up Texas first. You'd be getting together a lot of populous blue states plus a coupla swings.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:14 AM
You'd be getting together a lot of populous blue states plus a coupla swings.
This assumes that blue staters would be less concerned about the reverse argument. Do you want your EC votes (partially) determined by Oklahoma? I think that's a tough sell.
I also worry that the cure is worse than the problem. Once you base EC votes on events outside the state, I'd worry that opens the door to complex provisions that bias the outcome in subtle ways. It's a bit opaque, and so it makes me nervous.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:30 AM
I'm really fucking tired of the institutional conservatism of the US.
On a related subject, what does everyone think about the merits/demerits of a coalitional type of government, with lots of small parties, compared to having two or three powerful ones? I've heard people say it creates a lot more legislative inertia. True? Is it desirable, overall?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:41 AM
Being contrarian by nature, I actually like the two-party system. It forces groups to form large coalitions to govern instead of effectively retreating into single issue advocacy. Moreover, it has proven remarkably stable.
But I'm quite aware that I am in the minority with view.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:46 AM
60: Does your affection extend to approving of a electoral system that effectively locks out third parties (except in major times of upheaval), then, or would your ideal be a government where third parties have a chance, but don't end up having as much appeal as a handful of dominant, broad-platform parties?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 11:50 AM
Well, I'm kind of agnostic on that question, absent electoral process specifics. I'm not intrinsically averse to IRV and the like; on the other hand, I don't think they will help 3rd parties nearly as much as their partisans believe.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:02 PM
55/21: As I understand, what Maine/Nebraska do is they award2 votes to the overall winner plus 1 each to the winner in each Congressional District. They haven't wound up splitting any votes recently, I don't think (Nebraska doesn't really have any Dem-leaning districts as I understand it, and Maine only has two districts so it's hard to win the state without winning both districts; though I think one of its districts is slightly swingy.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:08 PM
All the way back to the top: are there many/any cases applying Article I, Section 10, Clause 3? Because there surely are state to state compacts.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:40 PM
I kinda like the electoral college. Without I think even the swing states would be useless and ignored, and now the candidates have to pretend they like Michigan and Ohio and other places at least.
I am for legislative inertia. Why would I want the government to be able to fuck things up efficiently?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:44 PM
I am for legislative inertia. Why would I want the government to be able to fuck things up efficiently?
Interesting. I think of this as what used to be a standard centrist Republican (maybe not even centrist) trope. It's also roughly my position. Dems really, really had a Come to Jeebus moment in the '90s.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:50 PM
Without I think even the swing states would be useless and ignored, and now the candidates have to pretend they like Michigan and Ohio and other places at least.
I don't follow. Wouldn't the campaigning just go where the people are? Lots of people in Ohio.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:54 PM
"I kinda like the electoral college. Without I think even the swing states would be useless and ignored"
As they should be. Selecting certain states arbitrarily as worthy of more campaign effort seems pretty silly to me.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 12:56 PM
If you want to think about this without reference to the partisan dimension (which I, for real-world purposes, would not, but for here, let's try it), then you really do, per 67 and 68, have to decide whether you think U.S. federalism deserves any respect or not.
AFAIK, U.S. federalism is entirely unique; nobody else has ever looked at a Constitution that allows the national legislature to draw regular enclosed curves on the map, call them "states", and thus augment the representation in the Senate by two, even if nobody lives inside the confines of those curves, and said yeah, we're borrowing that. Notice how carefully I'm not naming any states -- but there are some with two Senators, and only one Congressman. What (since the proper pronoun isn't "who") do those Senators represent? (Insert snide comment: "rocks?" "oil?")
If you think there's any merit to this system, you should keep the Electoral College or some variant of it. If not, not.
That said, to repeat, I think the argument here is always going to be the unilateral disarmament one -- you go first.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:03 PM
I really hate the electoral college. Part of it is just the principle of thing, but part of it is feeling like my vote doesn't count. My first presidential election vote was in 2000, when I was living in Texas. I voted for Nader because I was quite certain that voting for Gore would accomplish exactly nothing. And I was right. Bush got something like 70% of the vote.
I think institutions like the electoral college decrease voter turnout because they contribute to the idea that your vote doesn't really matter. There's been some cross-national research showing that many of the political institutions in the U.S.--bicameralism, two-party system, winner-take-all--contribute to lower voter turnout. In theory, don't we want more people to vote and feel invested in the government?
Posted by singular girl | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:10 PM
you think U.S. federalism deserves any respect or not.
Pretty much, no. There is something fundamentally dimwitted about a system in which the law is different depending on which side of the Hudson River you're standing on. Regional interests, schmegional interests -- if someone can come up with a regional interest that someone from NYC shares with someone from the Finger Lakes region, that separates the two of them from someone in Newark, I'll be awfully surprised.
Federalism was historically necessary at the founding of the nation, but after the Civil War we should have abolished it and made the states administrative regions.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:10 PM
71: Disagree entirely. Particularly after the last five years, I want as many in-built institutional powers (like states) vying for power with the Executive. I'm terrified of a world in which the bumfucks in Alabama get to tell me what my blue city should be like.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:16 PM
I actually think there's a good deal of merit in having states be relatively independent in certain ways. You actually get to have states try out new policies that wouldn't be politically feasible at the national level. But channeling national elections through the states' legislatures is wrong.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:16 PM
There's always more people in urban areas. And it's going to be cheaper, more efficient, etc., to try to win over urban areas because there's lots of voters in one place. Why would I bother stumping all over Smallville, OH when I can concentrate on a couple of the cities and pick up the same amounts of voters? If it's just a straight popular vote, I should tailor my message to big cities, and focus on getting people out to vote. Leads to a different set of policy issues and wide swatches of smaller concerns being ignored.
I'm seeing this leading to messages that focus pretty much on cities and ignore rural areas.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:19 PM
Ditto 72. But I think LB's point was more specific to elections.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:21 PM
I'm seeing this leading to messages that focus pretty much on cities and ignore rural areas.
All in all, that would be a net gain.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:22 PM
I'm seeing this leading to messages that focus pretty much on cities and ignore rural areas.
Well, NH and IA are going to get less in the way of retail politics, certainly, but it's not like rural Texans are getting any love now. I'd expect advertising to hit rural areas pretty much in proportion to their populations.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:24 PM
Net gain's somewhat irrelevant. For now, that's totally cool, as the cities seem sane and generally favorable to the sorts of politics that allow me to buy birth control, have a job, and such. But I don't think it's always going to be that way, looking at some fast growing cities in the South and West.
Rural areas are always going to have fewer people (I continue the trend of stating the obvious), but they represent a pretty important viewpoint, and I really don't like the idea of policy completely ignoring farmers & the like because they aren't a voting base.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:27 PM
71-75: I'm in the minority on this, but I don't like federalism regardless. Mostly, I don't like it as a lawyer; I never thought about it much before law school. Maybe I'll try to put together a post on it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:30 PM
but they represent a pretty important viewpoint
By "important," you seem to mean, "outsized." What about this view requies outsized importance?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:31 PM
Outsized?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:36 PM
What SCMT said. Our Senate also disproportionately favors small rural areas. And any group can form unions/trade organizations to lobby for their interests. And - rural areas aren't exactly reaping large political benefits from this imbalance, economy-wise, unless we're talking about bridges to nowhere in Alaska and the like, which are really more for the contractors anyway. Meanwhile, are cities could certainly use some more federal dollars, especially where education is concerned. The Shame of the Nation being what it is.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:38 PM
Meanwhile, are cities
our cities. Sheesh. What am I, Tia?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:41 PM
81: I was going to make the same post as Tim, using 'disproportionate to population' for 'outsized'. Why should rural interests be considered at a level disproportionate to rural population?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:48 PM
LB, I'm with you on federalism. I'm really fascinated by it because it seems so archaic in the context of other advanced postindustrial democracies. I have no data on this, but I would think it would be inefficient because you have to replicate bureaucracy. pdf23ds lists the only advantage to federalism I can think of (policy innovation at the state level, which is actually, broadly speaking, one of my research interests).
Posted by singular girl | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 1:49 PM
Cala has said, answering 84, "because they represent a pretty important viewpoint", but that explanation just doesn't go far enough for me. Why does that justify giving them more of a vote? I think the standard here should be pretty high.
Would the rural interested not represented by significant lobbying groups already, who would be somewhat disenfranchised were we to abolish the senate, be worse off than similar minority urban groups that don't currently have any such favor structurally?
I apologize for my phrasing.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:10 PM
Maybe we should start by reforming our primary system. I mean, really, Ohio? Rhode Island? South Carolina? You've had your turn. Let some other states go first for once.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:11 PM
I wouldn't mind if unbound one of the houses of Congress from geographic restrictions. Let the Greens have a couple of senators, if they want.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:15 PM
I responded and I think it ate my comment. Anyhow. I don't think the trade-off is between over-represented rural interests (which we have now) and proportionally represented rural interests. I think it's between over-representation and practically no representation for rural interests, because I can't see why anyone would bother trying to scrounge 200,000 rural/small town votes when they could do the same more efficiently in a big city. They only bother now because scrounging those votes could win the whole state. (Scrounge for 200k, get counted for 1 million.)
And I think it would be a bad thing if "President" just meant "the dude all the cities liked." We know from the last election that cities tend to vote the same. It's not great now, but I think it's more balanced than it would be. At least the whole nation has to be considered.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:22 PM
I agree with 87. Why is the primary schedule the same all the time anyway?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:23 PM
Here is a question that is in a deep and difficult sense an un-American thing to ask, but perhaps for precisely this reason we should prepare a very good answer for it, if possible:
"Why should rural interests be represented? Shouldn't governments represent people, and not interests?"
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:27 PM
And I think it would be a bad thing if "President" just meant "the dude all the cities liked." We know from the last election that cities tend to vote the same. It's not great now, but I think it's more balanced than it would be. At least the whole nation has to be considered.
But, but, it wouldn't be just the dude that all the cities liked. George Bush won the popular vote to the tune of three million or so last time. It's not like the cities are the only places voting. Most Americans live in the suburbs or exurbs, anyway.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:27 PM
To expand, what would really be so different about a popular vote model when it comes to how campaigns are run? The presidential candidate would physically campaign in different places? Who cares? What percentage of the electorate actually goes to those rallies? And what percentage of that number is undecided?
It's all about television these days anyway, and the major media markets would all still be saturated, as they pretty much are now (except maybe California). I just don't see how campaigns would be run that differently in any real way, except that the candidates would maybe go to different places, which happens every four years anyway, since the "battleground states" change with every cycle.
As for governance, it might be the case that cities would get more of the federal dough that was usually earmarked for Florida or whatever, but how is that a loss? One or two states shouldn't get quicker disaster relief or fatter crop subsidies because they happen to be swing states.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:35 PM
I agree that television gets everywhere. This is about the message. Right now candidates care about Ohio & other swing states, even if they don't go there, because the 10K vote difference might mean a whole pile of electoral votes. The message has to be targeted to that area. That means someone's going to have to learn about that area, and what issues are important there, etc.
If it's just the popular vote, then all I need is another 10K votes. Why try for Ohio? Either party can scrounge 10K or 20K votes by kicking its base a little harder. Scare up some more homophobia, scare up some more Supreme Court boogie men. Burned out Rust Belt? Flyover.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't see either party really giving a damn about Ohio (insert other boring swing state here) otherwise.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 2:54 PM
Except Ohio has twenty electoral votes for a reason - it's a big state, with lots of voters worth winning. And if rural votes counted across state boundaries, there would be a lot of them. Understanding that is why Walmart is as ginormous as it is today. Rural votes would still be able to swing elections, but Ohio's rural vote wouldn't be able to do so.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 3:04 PM
Cala, I think I can frame it differently. "Targeting message to some area" = "pandering." Steel tariffs, Yucca Mountain, corn subsidies for Iowa, that sort of thing. Also, note that Bush screwed California with impunity because there was no way that they were voting him. Ditto New York on 9/11 reconstruction and Homeland Security.
As for "either party can scrounge 10K to 20K more votes by kicking its base a little harder," that obviously can't work for both parties at once. Sometimes the best way to get more votes will be to get more swing voters to vote for you. Probably most of the time.
(And candidates go to swing states all the time. The best thing that ever happened to Presidential campaigns was the high-speed ferry across Lake Michigan -- get from Michigan to Wisconsin without touching yucky Illinois and Indiana!)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 3:04 PM
91: "un-American thing to ask... Why should rural interests be represented? Shouldn't governments represent people, and not interests?"
I don't think this is un-American at all. Think of the one-person/one-vote principle, which applies to most all elections nowadays. Originally, states were allowed to deviate from one-person/one-vote for good reasons (such as providing effective representation of minority interests, including rural interests and the like). But reasons for deviation are, for the most part, no longer considered by the courts, and one-person/one-vote is seen as an end in itself, rather than as a means to prevent gerrymandering, etc.
The Constitutionally-mandated deviations from one-person/one-vote are upheld--rather strictly, as people have noted--but the reasons underlying them are seldom even considered outside of those specific contexts. For the most part, the courts don't allow protection of interests any more.
Posted by meh | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 3:18 PM
I don't think the sidebar is updating comments properly.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:01 PM
98: No, the whole front page is broken -- it says 57 comments for the top post when there are none, and 85 for this post when there are 98 / 99, etc.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:03 PM
Yeah, just noticed that. Whoever closed comments on the top thread BREAKED it.
You broke Unfogged!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:06 PM
2006 is shaping up to be a pretty crappy year. Maybe in March we can all get syphillis.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:07 PM
<sob>
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:07 PM
Maybe in March we can all get syphillis.
Together? ATM?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:18 PM
My prediction: before long Unfogged will be back in a new, streamlined, death-dealing form.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:23 PM
I assure you, we are witnessing the last throes of the insurgent. Why, that he would resort to such a desperate measure is the very measure of his desperation. Last one to agree hates the troops.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:31 PM
The front page has become Unfogged's own unreliable narrator.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:34 PM
I would blame Wolfson, but that would be a cliché.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:41 PM
Anybody in here have a flashlight?
Hey! Who grabbed my ass?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:46 PM
Sorry, guys, the hosting company is acting up and refusing to return emails. The Unfogged-Borg is engaged in discussions of how to purchase our own satellite from which to ensure uninterrupted service.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 4:55 PM
Sleep, FL. Sleep.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:02 PM
Oh, so *this* is where the party is. Thanks for telling me.
I'd shower you with obscenities...but you know where I work! Meddling kids!
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:40 PM
102
Posted by Mark | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:42 PM
Don't worry, FL, none of us looked at the website for REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED --
Ow! All that redacting hurts.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:43 PM
I'm not allowed to say things like "108 gets it exactly right" anymore, am I?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:45 PM
All that redacting hurts.
*Looks meaningfully at slol*
*weeps*
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:45 PM
114: Depends. Are you monitoring the site meter to see if your dean is reading this blog?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:46 PM
115: What did I do?
Oh shoot, is that your shtik, SB? I'm sorry.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:47 PM
Apparently, as punishment, every time I post a comment I get an error page. Also ow.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:48 PM
Oh shoot, is that your shtik, SB?
No no, there are enough REDACTEDs for everyone to play.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:48 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:49 PM
*hugs slolernr*
Posted by Mark | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:50 PM
Now that googling the site is broken, we'll see whether anyone actually remembers anything, or if the whole operation depends on access to a search engine. Wasn't FL the Green Lantern? I can't remember anymore....
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:51 PM
121: Hey, don't get so handsy. Just because FL is out....
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:52 PM
Stop me before I ellipse again.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:53 PM
OK, I need to go home. I'm sure this, like that season on 'Dynasty,' will reveal itself to be a bad dream.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 5:53 PM
FL, do you get e-mail sent to fontanalabs@unfogged.com?
This may double post, though I don't think so.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 6:34 PM
I swear I'm not being a contrarian... and I'm not really sure how I feel about the abolition of the EC... but I do think that Cala has a point with respect to rural populations, if one agrees that the EC shifts some power away from urban areas and into rural areas. If that's true, then there's a case to be made that the abolition of the EC would lead to even greater developmental disparities between such regions. This inequality in wealth, health, education, and so forth, would not only be stimulative of social instability, but strikes me as fundamentally contradictory to the democratic spirit.
A democracy involves, after all, not simply a majoritarian principle, but protections for minorities as well. Such protections ought go beyond protections of civil rights, and should include access to sufficient political power to sustain a fair amount of economic and social support.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:31 PM
But you can move from the rural areas to the cities, so your lot is not wholly predestined by your geographical location. Also, rural areas as single group would still carry a lot of weight, so you should still get policies aimed at rural areas as such. You would get fewer policies aimed at rural Kentucky as such. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing. It seems as if most arguments against the abolition of the EC hew, if silently, to some Jeffersonian (IIRC) notion of the agragarian lifestyle as the bedrock of our national ethos.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-28-06 7:44 PM
A free society is about the consent of the governed. The losers must acknowledge the legitimacy of the process, and feel they not only are protected, but actually have something to gain by participating. Even 10-20% who feel they have nothing at stake can bring a country down. This is very hard for a majority to accept. Sometimes I think the US 2-party system is a mistake for it conflates coalition with consensus, and misinterprets legitimacy. Legitimacy is granted by the minorities, not appropriated by a majority.
The EC stays. It is essential to our understanding of democracy.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 2:30 AM
Legitimacy is granted by the minorities, not appropriated by a majority.
I'm willing to agree with that, but it isn't really responsive. It's a question of how we structure the important minorities, or if we even should. Right now we privilege small state minorities and intrastate rural minorities in a way that we don't privilege any others. What's so special about them?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 1-06 11:16 AM