Texas Republicans propose State Electoral college

[San Lumen]

It’s completely relevant. You simply don’t understand how representation or population density works. Nor do you believe in free and fair elections and would rather dodge or insult than actually debate your viewpoints

How is proportional representation unfair, not free or undemocratic?

I have nothing against it. We weren’t talking about that. Again your dodging

[Thermodolia]

Not according to the founding fathers. One of whom, Tommy J, said that the laws of the old generation shouldn’t effect the new generation.

Basically according to him we should have changed the constitution about 50 to 100 years in.

Tommy J. was a rogue and a scoundrel, and we should shun him for stanning the French Revolution.

Vive la revolution!

[Thermodolia]

How is proportional representation unfair, not free or undemocratic?

I have nothing against it. We weren’t talking about that. Again your dodging

Really? Because every time we talk about your against it

[Fahran]

The Knesset isn’t the only legislature out there. The Dutch Tweede Kamer is elected in much the same way and doesn’t have the same issues

Fair enough, but I would prefer not to have even the possibility of that sort of gridlock. I can deal with different parties disagreeing so long as governance carries on as usual. When it grinds the entire political and governmental process to a halt, it becomes dysfunctional.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Nah. The price of food would be higher and most of it would be imported.
The only people who would die would be the farmers who for some spiteful reason stopped farming and refused to move to the city and get a job.

The US would not be food sufficient and many other countries depend on us for food imports.

That's what I said. You'd have to import food, and since there would be less food in the world overall, prices would be higher.
More people would starve, in the poor countries. And malnutrition in the US would go up.

But don't look for some way to blame the city people for that. If you make a demand and it's not met, so you retaliate, you don't get to blame them for not meeting your demand. If country people for some demented reason ceased to produce food, the human suffering and economic damage would be 100% their fault.

Many farmers would go bankrupt without large subsidies because the price of food is so low due to the abundance of farms.

Sounds to me like you need to export more.

Or if you like, government could take some of those farms off your hands? Since you seem to have too many ...

[Dresderstan]

How is proportional representation unfair, not free or undemocratic?

I have nothing against it. We weren’t talking about that. Again your dodging

If I'm dodging I wonder what the fuck you're doing cuz you're clearly not answering it, especially if all you can do is insult my intelligence.

[San Lumen]

I have nothing against it. We weren’t talking about that. Again your dodging

Really? Because every time we talk about your against it

I don’t think it’s the best system. I prefer IRV or MmP

[Punished UMN]

The US would not be food sufficient and many other countries depend on us for food imports.

That's what I said. You'd have to import food, and since there would be less food in the world overall, prices would be higher.
More people would starve, in the poor countries. And malnutrition in the US would go up.

But don't look for some way to blame the city people for that. If you make a demand and it's not met, so you retaliate, you don't get to blame them for not meeting your demand. If country people for some demented reason ceased to produce food, the human suffering and economic damage would be 100% their fault.

Many farmers would go bankrupt without large subsidies because the price of food is so low due to the abundance of farms.

Sounds to me like you need to export more.

Or if you like, government could take some of those farms off your hands? Since you seem to have too many ...

The price of food is low because of the exporting. Farmers require subsidies so that they can continue to provide the abundance of food that keeps prices low. Food is a commodity that it is in the common interests of the entire world to keep the price of low, that is why it is important to provide subsidies. Without the subsidies, farmers would go bankrupt quickly (many are already going bankrupt) and the farms would have to close, which would then have the effect of driving up the price.

[Dresderstan]

Really? Because every time we talk about your against it

I don’t think it’s the best system. I prefer IRV or MmP

That. Is. Proportional. Representation. IRV is instant run-off voting, MMP is Mixed Member Proportion, and every time we've talked about it, you act like it's bad because "At large districts illegal, hur dur"

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Ah, dreams. Perhaps we could take a novel approach to "three quarters of the state legislatures" and make amendments a bit easier?

Amending the constitution should be difficult. It should not be something you can do on a whim

Why not? In Australia it's one referendum, passed by majority nationally and a majority of people in a majority of states. In practice, it's quite hard enough to change, and most proposals fail.

There have been 44. Of which only these have been passed (since Federation in 1900)

1906 – Senate Elections – amended Section 13 to slightly alter the length and dates of Senators' terms of office.
1910 – State Debts – amended Section 105 to extend the power of the Federal Government to take over pre-existing State debts, to debts incurred by a State at any time.
1928 – State Debts – inserted Section 105A to ensure the constitutional validity of the financial agreement reached between the Australian Government and State governments in 1927.
1946 – Social Services – inserted Section 51 (xxiiiA) to extend the power of the Federal Government over a range of social services.
1967 – Aboriginal Australians – amended Section 51 (xxvi) to prevent the Parliament of Australia from legislating Indigenous Australians differently than other Australians; repealed Section 127 which prevented Aboriginal Australians from being counted in the Australian Census.
1977
Senate Casual Vacancies – resolution to the political fallout of the constitutional crisis of 1975; formalised the convention that a State parliament should choose a replacement Senator from the same party as the departing senator if the party remains.
Referendums – amended Section 128 to allow residents of Australian Territories to vote in referendums and be counted in the Australian census.
Retirement of Judges – amended Section 72 to create a retirement age of 70 for judges in federal courts.

Do any of those look like the jackboot of the dictator to you?

[Thermodolia]

The Knesset isn’t the only legislature out there. The Dutch Tweede Kamer is elected in much the same way and doesn’t have the same issues

Fair enough, but I would prefer not to have even the possibility of that sort of gridlock. I can deal with different parties disagreeing so long as governance carries on as usual. When it grinds the entire political and governmental process to a halt, it becomes dysfunctional.

Which is why we should probably elect our house based on regional lists like Sweden does if we use PR or have MMP like Germany

[San Lumen]

I don’t think it’s the best system. I prefer IRV or MmP

That. Is. Proportional. Representation. IRV is instant run-off voting, MMP is Mixed Member Proportion, and every time we've talked about it, you act like it's bad because "At large districts illegal, hur dur"

IRV is not proportional representation

[Anderr]

The Federal government own quite a lot of land you know. Should we give the Federal Government 28% of the votes?

Miss me with semantics

It's not a simple point I admit. But if you give it some thought you can draw wider conclusions about the difference between past and future!

The EC gives areas with lower population density greater voting power....probably so those who own the land and thus the future prospects of economic growth and food production have a say.

"Suburbanism promotes socialism" because ... the workers should not be allowed to own land?

Suburbanism Makes land more expensive because it increases the value of land via appeal and creates physical scarcity and economic scarcity cause it grows in value faster than denser forms of housing. Housing is often the biggest component of an economy and if it is expensive and scarce the surrounding commercial real estate will tend to be as well and have less available customers. This forces companies to create economies of scale and it becomes or became rather.....who can survive out in suburbia. On top of that it might increase the value of a currency making it even more expensive to compete.

[Anderr]

The Federal government own quite a lot of land you know. Should we give the Federal Government 28% of the votes?

Miss me with semantics

It's not a simple point I admit. But if you give it some thought you can draw wider conclusions about the difference between past and future!

The EC gives areas with lower population density greater voting power....probably so those who own the land and thus the future prospects of economic growth and food production have a say.

"Suburbanism promotes socialism" because ... the workers should not be allowed to own land?

Suburbanism Makes land more expensive because it increases the value of land via appeal and creates physical scarcity and economic scarcity cause it grows in value faster than denser forms of housing. Housing is often the biggest component of an economy and if it is expensive and scarce the surrounding commercial real estate will tend to be as well and have less available customers. This forces companies to create economies of scale and it becomes or became rather.....who can survive out in suburbia. On top of that it might increase the value of a currency making it even more expensive to compete. relative to economic density of course.

[Anderr]

Miss me with semantics



The EC gives areas with lower population density greater voting power....probably so those who own the land and thus the future prospects of economic growth and food production have a say.



Suburbanism Makes land more expensive because it increases the value of land via appeal and creates physical scarcity and economic scarcity cause it grows in value faster than denser forms of housing. Housing is often the biggest component of an economy and if it is expensive and scarce the surrounding commercial real estate will tend to be as well and have less available customers. This forces companies to create economies of scale and it becomes or became rather.....who can survive out in suburbia. On top of that it might increase the value of a currency making it even more expensive to compete. relative to economic density of course.

Put another way im going to want to locate my business places where i can access enough potential customers unless thats not my business model

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I don’t think it’s the best system. I prefer IRV or MmP

That. Is. Proportional. Representation. IRV is instant run-off voting, MMP is Mixed Member Proportion, and every time we've talked about it, you act like it's bad because "At large districts illegal, hur dur"

Instant runoff voting allows more than two candidates to run for the one office, and all have a chance. It can be resolved by one candidate getting an outright majority (and at first in the US that might happen, due to entrenchment of Two Party and people still being averse to 'vote splitting') but comes into its own when the first vote is widely split ... I'm sure you know, but it works to select the candidate who is most overall popular, but not necessarily most voters' first choice.

The point is that it's not actually proportional representation. Proportional is the first count of Instant Runoff, it's not really suitable to fill a single office (unless someone gets an outright majority).

It might be disappointing for Texans or whoever uses it. If they vote with FPTP habits, they'll get a result that is indistinguishable from a regular FPTP election. It's for the best though. Imagine if they watched the count and a surprise winner emerged from the middle of the pack. They might lose faith in the system right away.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The Federal government own quite a lot of land you know. Should we give the Federal Government 28% of the votes?

Miss me with semantics

The Federal government owns 28% of the land. If ownership of land entitles a voter, why shouldn't it also entitle the government? They could vote for themselves!

Or if they were feeling particularly generous one year, they could vote for the other party and they'd get in for a while!

It's not a simple point I admit. But if you give it some thought you can draw wider conclusions about the difference between past and future!

The EC gives areas with lower population density greater voting power....probably so those who own the land and thus the future prospects of economic growth and food production have a say.

It doesn't really. It gives voters in states with low population an advantage.

The state which produces the most food is California. They are also the state whose voters are most disadvantaged by the EC.

"Suburbanism promotes socialism" because ... the workers should not be allowed to own land?

Suburbanism Makes land more expensive because it increases the value of land via appeal and creates physical scarcity and economic scarcity cause it grows in value faster than denser forms of housing. Housing is often the biggest component of an economy and if it is expensive and scarce the surrounding commercial real estate will tend to be as well and have less available customers. This forces companies to create economies of scale and it becomes or became rather.....who can survive out in suburbia. On top of that it might increase the value of a currency making it even more expensive to compete.

Hmm. The inflating price of land in cities and suburbs is a major problem I agree. But perhaps the problem will solve itself as a block of land with one house on it becomes more un-affordable, people will realize that it's not worth working until they're 80 to pay it off. And then I guess the next problem is where to put the poor people whose city digs get knocked down to build flats.

[San Lumen]

Miss me with semantics



The EC gives areas with lower population density greater voting power....probably so those who own the land and thus the future prospects of economic growth and food production have a say.



Suburbanism Makes land more expensive because it increases the value of land via appeal and creates physical scarcity and economic scarcity cause it grows in value faster than denser forms of housing. Housing is often the biggest component of an economy and if it is expensive and scarce the surrounding commercial real estate will tend to be as well and have less available customers. This forces companies to create economies of scale and it becomes or became rather.....who can survive out in suburbia. On top of that it might increase the value of a currency making it even more expensive to compete. relative to economic density of course.

Why should ones zip code determine the value of your vote?

[Outer Acharet]

Sure, because Texas is going progressive because progressive ideals are naturally just, and not because it's had an influx of liberal voters from states with more expensive costs of living like California, and because the immigrants coming from Central America tend to vote Democrat because that party represents them more.

Politics is not a spectrum. Nor does it exist in a vacuum. Though I did enjoy the assessment of conservative ideals as naturally outdated and thus inferior, destined to be gradually replaced by progressive ones, despite historical evidence not supporting that at all.

EDIT: Genuinely curious, how does an electoral college encourage a two-party system? I understood that two-party systems tend to emerge naturally unless they are dissuaded from emerging, like in the Parliamentary system.

Please tell me when I said Politics is a spectrum?

I am merely pointing out that more people in the US are wanting the same basic progressive policies as Japan, South Korea, EU and Commonwealth Realm Countries.

Also, not all Democratic States are as expensive as California, and that also assumes all of California has the same price everywhere. So that's just sounds like an X = Y concept.

These basic progressive policies are also not partisan, but which party is more likely to implement them? The Republicans who has ties to the rich, or the Democrats, who are more or less the party to somewhat help the people?

"Immigrants from Central America" cannot vote if they are illegal, and that just sounds like blatant racism.

Also not true. The UK has a two party system more or less, but that's due to the FPTP.

The 2 Party system in the US happens via the electoral college because of the Winner Take all system. If a Presidential vote in Texas let's say wins 51% of the state, then they win Texas as a whole. Multiply they through 48 out of 50 state, and that's how the 2 Party System maintains dominance.

"As society progresses, people do become more progressive and less conservative". Suggests that societies naturally trend along a single axis from more right-wing policies to more left-wing policies. EDIT: A single axis with two options extending outwards is a spectrum from one option's extremes to another's.

People in the US should enjoy those same benefits as other first world nations. They don't because a large portion of the population doesn't want to expand the government in order to get them due to mistrust of the federal government. That's a democracy, what the majority wants goes. And there's not enough of a majority in favor of these policies nationwide to implement them.

I was alluding to soCal specifically, but didn't want to exclude others in a specific statement. And can confirm from lived experience a lot of the people moving to Texas recently are middle-class families and individuals from soCal coming to Texas for lower costs.

The majority of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border come from Central America, not Mexico. Most of them become legalized and thus able to vote, or their children do, through DACA or simply being born on American soil. The Democratic party markets itself to these folks as being the party that supports them. Also, for evidence they vote Democrat, look at the map of the 2016 election in Texas posted earlier in this thread. In addition to the cities, the southern regions went blue (EDIT: Though most of the Democratic counties were less straight Democrat compared to the low-population rural north, which was red as blood).

And while I may subconsciously have some prejudices, as all humans do, I try to tamp down on them. I also believe lessening restrictions on immigration to allow more people in need is the moral thing to do, as right now our policies are basically "Oh, you're not a doctor with a fortune in tow? REJECTED!" and in addition to flying in the face of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" cause brain drain and a loss of educated citizens in poorer countries.

Many Republican representatives are rich, but their voter base sure as hell isn't.

"The UK has a two party system more or less", eh, two parties larger than the rest, but they still need to go beyond their own base on a regular basis to get things done.

To comment more generally, my takeaway from this thread has been reinforcing my view parliamentary systems are generally more efficient, thanks to more naturally encouraging the formation of broad coalitions through many smaller parties.

[Cordel One]

They are libertarian, they're just, uh, libertarian with American characteristics. Yeah, that's definitely it.


The egg. Something that wasn't quite a chicken laid an egg that hatched into something that could be considered a chicken. I think.

Good job missing the point of the metaphor.

Good job missing an obvious sarcastic tangent.

[Celritannia]

With the exception of the Holy See, the US is the only First World country that uses an Electoral College system, and it is generally terrible.
Unless the Electoral College was proportional based and not Winner Take All.
Plus, an Electoral college maintains the 2 party system which damages democracy even further, just as FPTP does.

Proportionally based instead of Winner Takes All is a little better, but can break rather badly when 3rd parties get represented.

Removing the requirement for one candidate to get an absolute majority (using FPTP instead) would stop it breaking, but also gives the third party no role at all, or else the oversize power of being a tie-breaker. Perhaps they could be required to give their Electors to one of the other parties if neither has a majority, but I feel this would give third parties too much power in close elections.

The EC is unlike a parliament, in which it is meaningful for a third party to enter a coalition to form majority government, because the EC only sits to select the new President, and any third party influencing that loses all it's influence the moment the vote is final. They could ask their "coalition partner" to bomb some penguins for them, as a condition of putting them in, but once the new President is decided the minor "partner" has no way of making them do what they promised.

But after all, third parties shouldn't expect much say in who becomes President. Anything but two big parties barely makes sense: there is one office to fill, whatever system you use is going to tend towards a head-to-head. Third (and fourth etc) parties make sense in a proportionally-represented Parliament. They don't make sense in the US Senate, because all offices there are single offices each from its own constituency. This, more than FPTP or the EC, is what gravitates US politics towards two parties.

As to why single-member constituencies with FPTP lead to Two Party in the US, but not so clearly in the UK (where the Liberal Democrats have been a persistent influence on the others and even spent a term in coalition with the Tories), I think it's because of the strong States in the US. They all (?) use single-member constituencies, and mostly FPTP (Louisiana uses runoffs). And many Federal politicians start out as State politicians, and any who were true independents at that level can only practically move up to Federal government by joining one of the two big parties.

You can still have the EC with PR by also adding a 2 Round-Voting system.

[Upper Nan]

It's a bad idea and very obvious that they're only trying to do it because Texas is becoming more Democratic-leaning over time. The federal EC empowers smaller states at the cost of larger ones, so they're obviously hoping the same would happen in-state.

[Celritannia]

Please tell me when I said Politics is a spectrum?

I am merely pointing out that more people in the US are wanting the same basic progressive policies as Japan, South Korea, EU and Commonwealth Realm Countries.

Also, not all Democratic States are as expensive as California, and that also assumes all of California has the same price everywhere. So that's just sounds like an X = Y concept.

These basic progressive policies are also not partisan, but which party is more likely to implement them? The Republicans who has ties to the rich, or the Democrats, who are more or less the party to somewhat help the people?

"Immigrants from Central America" cannot vote if they are illegal, and that just sounds like blatant racism.

Also not true. The UK has a two party system more or less, but that's due to the FPTP.

The 2 Party system in the US happens via the electoral college because of the Winner Take all system. If a Presidential vote in Texas let's say wins 51% of the state, then they win Texas as a whole. Multiply they through 48 out of 50 state, and that's how the 2 Party System maintains dominance.

"As society progresses, people do become more progressive and less conservative". Suggests that societies naturally trend along a single axis from more right-wing policies to more left-wing policies. EDIT: A single axis with two options extending outwards is a spectrum from one option's extremes to another's.

People in the US should enjoy those same benefits as other first world nations. They don't because a large portion of the population doesn't want to expand the government in order to get them due to mistrust of the federal government. That's a democracy, what the majority wants goes. And there's not enough of a majority in favor of these policies nationwide to implement them.

I was alluding to soCal specifically, but didn't want to exclude others in a specific statement. And can confirm from lived experience a lot of the people moving to Texas recently are middle-class families and individuals from soCal coming to Texas for lower costs.

The majority of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border come from Central America, not Mexico. Most of them become legalized and thus able to vote, or their children do, through DACA or simply being born on American soil. The Democratic party markets itself to these folks as being the party that supports them. Also, for evidence they vote Democrat, look at the map of the 2016 election in Texas posted earlier in this thread. In addition to the cities, the southern regions went blue (EDIT: Though most of the Democratic counties were less straight Democrat compared to the low-population rural north, which was red as blood).

And while I may subconsciously have some prejudices, as all humans do, I try to tamp down on them. I also believe lessening restrictions on immigration to allow more people in need is the moral thing to do, as right now our policies are basically "Oh, you're not a doctor with a fortune in tow? REJECTED!" and in addition to flying in the face of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" cause brain drain and a loss of educated citizens in poorer countries.

Many Republican representatives are rich, but their voter base sure as hell isn't.

"The UK has a two party system more or less", eh, two parties larger than the rest, but they still need to go beyond their own base on a regular basis to get things done.

To comment more generally, my takeaway from this thread has been reinforcing my view parliamentary systems are generally more efficient, thanks to more naturally encouraging the formation of broad coalitions through many smaller parties.

Showing a map of Texas being more blue does not indicate more illegal immigrants becoming legalised are tipping the vote. Unless there is a good amount of evidence to show a high amount of legalised immigrants are voting for the Dems.

But that is also not true. Progressive policies will not expand the government is implemented correctly. Nor will taxes increase if income tax for the wealthier citizens and those receiving tax cuts do get taxed higher.
Between the 50s and early 70s, income tax was almost as high as 90%, this helped a lot of infrastructure, and essential services to be funded.
But the other fact is, these services are cheaper when it is done through tax, or a half and half system.

Incorrect, in the UK, you only need to get the right amount of seats in PArliament to ensure total domination of the legislature, just like in the 2019 election. So until FPTP is removed, it will be a 2 party system, since tactical voting is required.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Proportionally based instead of Winner Takes All is a little better, but can break rather badly when 3rd parties get represented.

Removing the requirement for one candidate to get an absolute majority (using FPTP instead) would stop it breaking, but also gives the third party no role at all, or else the oversize power of being a tie-breaker. Perhaps they could be required to give their Electors to one of the other parties if neither has a majority, but I feel this would give third parties too much power in close elections.

The EC is unlike a parliament, in which it is meaningful for a third party to enter a coalition to form majority government, because the EC only sits to select the new President, and any third party influencing that loses all it's influence the moment the vote is final. They could ask their "coalition partner" to bomb some penguins for them, as a condition of putting them in, but once the new President is decided the minor "partner" has no way of making them do what they promised.

But after all, third parties shouldn't expect much say in who becomes President. Anything but two big parties barely makes sense: there is one office to fill, whatever system you use is going to tend towards a head-to-head. Third (and fourth etc) parties make sense in a proportionally-represented Parliament. They don't make sense in the US Senate, because all offices there are single offices each from its own constituency. This, more than FPTP or the EC, is what gravitates US politics towards two parties.

As to why single-member constituencies with FPTP lead to Two Party in the US, but not so clearly in the UK (where the Liberal Democrats have been a persistent influence on the others and even spent a term in coalition with the Tories), I think it's because of the strong States in the US. They all (?) use single-member constituencies, and mostly FPTP (Louisiana uses runoffs). And many Federal politicians start out as State politicians, and any who were true independents at that level can only practically move up to Federal government by joining one of the two big parties.

You can still have the EC with PR by also adding a 2 Round-Voting system.

You could explain that some more.

2 Rounds or more gives minor parties nothing more than "signal" support: people will vote for them more often if they know they will get a second chance to vote if (when!) their preferred minor candidate is eliminated. So you might get 15% signalling that they would prefer the Libertarian, if only they had a chance. But when they're knocked out those voters can (if they wish) choose between the lesser of two evils.

Multi-round raised the profile of each minor party which might some day lead to them winning some seats, but it DOES NOT deliver them 15% of the seats. The Australian parliament uses IRV (as many rounds as there are candidates, but the voter only has to fill out one ballot) but is nonetheless dominated by two major parties. There is 1 Green (out of 151 seats) though nationally the Greens got a little over 10% of the vote. Multi-round voting but still for seats that are a head-to-heat contest for one place, barely weakens the Two Party System at all.

Proportional Representation is basically the idea that the vote for all parties is matched in seats in some kind of parliament. It requires that every voter sees the same ballot. The only detail worth mentioning is there is usually a minimum (say 2%) below which no seats are awarded.

[Celritannia]

You can still have the EC with PR by also adding a 2 Round-Voting system.

You could explain that some more.

2 Rounds or more gives minor parties nothing more than "signal" support: people will vote for them more often if they know they will get a second chance to vote if (when!) their preferred minor candidate is eliminated. So you might get 15% signalling that they would prefer the Libertarian, if only they had a chance. But when they're knocked out those voters can (if they wish) choose between the lesser of two evils.

Multi-round raised the profile of each minor party which might some day lead to them winning some seats, but it DOES NOT deliver them 15% of the seats. The Australian parliament uses IRV (as many rounds as there are candidates, but the voter only has to fill out one ballot) but is nonetheless dominated by two major parties. There is 1 Green (out of 151 seats) though nationally the Greens got a little over 10% of the vote. Multi-round voting but still for seats that are a head-to-heat contest for one place, barely weakens the Two Party System at all.

Proportional Representation is basically the idea that the vote for all parties is matched in seats in some kind of parliament. It requires that every voter sees the same ballot. The only detail worth mentioning is there is usually a minimum (say 2%) below which no seats are awarded.

I was of course just refering to the Presidential election, not the legislature.