Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.

Elections Third Party Candidate wins with 34%-49% of Electoral/Popular vote, should they be President?

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by GiTGuD, Sep 13, 2020 at 9:39 PM.

  1. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,141
    You need a majority in the electoral college. Otherwise the House decides. That's a big part of the point of the EC (along with the idea that voters would not know much about the candidates but would personally know the electors and the idea that voters would be heavily biased toward candidates from their own state).
     
  2. MMAisGod Ya keep pushing or ya quit. That simple.

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,854
    Likes Received:
    830
    Location:
    Apollo Beach, Florida
    Yea but I mean, say if the election comes around and FL votes. 50% voted 3rd party John Male, 25% voted Biden, and 25% voted Trump. Who wins FL? Biden?

    Flip that nationally, 50% voted 3rd party John Male, 25% voted Biden, and 25% voted Trump, who wins the election? Biden, due to House votes?

    Seems pretty absurd, but wouldn't that be the case? It would pretty much be in direct conflict with what the people/voters wanted. Very rare or impossible hypothetical, but still, it looks very weird.
     
  3. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,141
    In 2016, Trump won the election with only 46.1% of the popular vote so it's not unprecedented for the EC to lead to bad shit. But, yeah, any system you design will have some worst-case scenarios that look bad. How about Ted Nugent takes 30% of the EC vote, Buttigieg gets 29%, Gabbard gets 28%, and Oprah gets 13%? Should Nugent be president? That would also apparently be in direct conflict with what the people/voters want.
     
    Kaliph of Kush likes this.
  4. Zazen Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,923
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Didn't this happen in Greece with Syriza? I think it would be even harder in the USA though because nobody even thinks about the other parties.
     
  5. MMAisGod Ya keep pushing or ya quit. That simple.

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,854
    Likes Received:
    830
    Location:
    Apollo Beach, Florida
    So in this case, Nugent/Butti/Gab/, I don't know if Nugent should necessarily "win", but I don't think the system set up should mean that he and Oprah get 0% of the votes-that-matter while Butti/Gab get them all (especially considering Nugent/Oprah would combine for 43% here!). Everyone who could actually influence change pretty much leaves the system as is though, so it doesn't go through any improvement phases.
     
  6. ultramanhyata Reclimbing Like Mountain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,215
    Likes Received:
    1,870
    Location:
    GPS Error
    [​IMG]
     
  7. ultramanhyata Reclimbing Like Mountain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,215
    Likes Received:
    1,870
    Location:
    GPS Error
    Nice to see John Male finally getting the attention and recognition he deserves. Don't sleep on this guy. He was a great Airbus specialist and would make an even greater prez. IMO.

    [​IMG]
     
    MMAisGod likes this.
  8. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,141
    Well, I think the implication is that Nugent is the GOP candidate, Buttigieg is the Democratic candidate, and the other two are third parties. But the broader point is just that there are problems with whatever system you choose if you take the worst case that you can imagine. What you want to do is think more about realistic threats and kind of how the system can deal with problems (for example, it's not a given that the House goes straight party line in our current system--if this Male fellow gets 50%, it's not out of the question that he can get significant support in the House). Disagree that everyone who could influence change leaves the system.
     
    MMAisGod likes this.
  9. Kaliph of Kush Hashishiyan Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    40,507
    Likes Received:
    5,036
    Location:
    Pleasure Dome
    A two party system is just the likely outcome of a first-past-the-post system. If you want more parties then you would have to change that. There are exceptions but its usually in countries that have strong regional parties like India.
     
    Hungry Joe and IngaVovchanchyn like this.
  10. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,141
    And having more parties probably just means that you have coalitions that essentially mirror the current two parties. It seems to me that it's largely about a kind of identity thing (people want their specific subfaction to get recognition rather than to be the minority of a bigger party). The elimination of competing claims to legitimacy and resulting ease in getting things done and reduction in threat of collapse is the big advantage of the most common alternative.
     
  11. MMAisGod Ya keep pushing or ya quit. That simple.

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,854
    Likes Received:
    830
    Location:
    Apollo Beach, Florida
    Whoops I think I read it in reverse lol but you caught that. It would be interesting I think if some party was able to gain steam. Not Ross Perot steam, but real steam. I'm just not sure if they'd ever be able to win a state, because it would likely be something close to the splits you mentioned, closer to a 1/3 kind of deal where they win out, but I can't imagine them winning the state over the next D/R candidate. Like is a D/R rep really going to sit there and not vote their party's candidate for John Male? But I'm also not sure what the alternative would be since I'm not a believer in "popular vote should win it all" either.
     
  12. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,141
    What's the objection to a popular vote?
     
  13. MMAisGod Ya keep pushing or ya quit. That simple.

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,854
    Likes Received:
    830
    Location:
    Apollo Beach, Florida
    There are 50 states, and like 330 million in the U.S. California, Texas, Florida, and NY are about 115 million or whatever. 4 states being 1/3 of the decision making, while 46 states are 2/3 of the decision making, doesn't sit well with me. EC isn't perfect as I even said myself earlier, but popular vote is even worse since it doesn't really represent the majority of locations in the country well due to their population sizes being smaller.
     
    Cubo de Sangre likes this.
  14. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,141
    This seems incoherent to me. If you don't believe in democracy, that's fine (I mean, I disagree, but it's understandable), but I don't get the view that democracy is bad, but we should still have votes, but we should discount the votes for people in live in some places. There's no coherent principle behind the idea that certain voters should have their votes count more that you're expressing. Remember, when the EC was created, it was more like one district, one vote, and all districts were the same size.
     
  15. MMAisGod Ya keep pushing or ya quit. That simple.

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,854
    Likes Received:
    830
    Location:
    Apollo Beach, Florida
    Lol at "don't believe in democracy" and "the view that democracy is bad". Democracy occurs through representation of elected officials, you know, like America. Electoral College and the Constitution and all that jazz would take priority when faced with anything to disregard it. The EC while not perfect makes better sense, and is a better representation of 50 states vs 4 states having 33% of the voting power. Some dude here in FL or up in NY isn't representative of a guy voting North Dakota or Wyoming somewhere. Also, seems like you're implying that the Electoral College and the Constitution are outdated and/or needing to be replaced in that last sentence, which is the only thing I would find undemocratic.
     
  16. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,141
    But your argument is that it's not fair that some voters have more say just because there are a lot of them, right? That's pretty explicitly an anti-democracy argument.

    My argument here is more pro-Constitution. As I said, the idea behind the EC was A) voters wouldn't know as much about the candidates as they would about the electors; B) the EC would be a way to narrow the list down; C) the House would usually decide the election; D) the EC and representatives would be proportionate to the population. ~30K people=1 vote in both the EC and the House. There was no intention to give disproportionate weight to the voters in different states. That's an unintended consequence of the decision to cap the size of the House of Representatives and the decision of states to make electors winner-take-all. I think if we want to make the EC work, we should try to restore it to the original purpose. That is, you vote for electors, who then use their own judgment, each district elects their own elector, and all the districts are the same size. Or, failing that, we should just use a national PV (and amend the Constitution, which has a built-in system for rectifying this kind of flaw).
     
    Hungry Joe likes this.
  17. MMAisGod Ya keep pushing or ya quit. That simple.

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,854
    Likes Received:
    830
    Location:
    Apollo Beach, Florida
    Part of the purpose why the EC has been kept intact all these years is to ensure that all people and voices have an amount of say in the election cycles, since again, people could easily be drowned out if they live in North and South Dakota vs here in FL. That isn't "my" argument, it is a democratic argument that has withstood the test of time. It could just as easily be said that it is anti-democratic to let 4 states decide for for 46 others.

    The first half of your paragraph is a pretty strong argument to keep the EC as is imo, barring slight adjustments. The second half, I don't see too much wrong with that, and if it was problematic I would have to assume that it would have been taken up for contention repeatedly by now. However, with all the stuff we see, constantly, about everything, one of the "rarely if ever" conversations I hear brought is the EC. You only ever really hear it for a couple of months every 4 years, never being a major issue enough to last a month or two past the general. Even when Bush stole FL it pretty much faded away after a couple of months. If it was truly in need of change you'd hear it nonstop like you hear about health care, campaign finance reform, or other topics that never die. With all that said, I think your suggestion is actually a pretty good one. I'm not sure how you pull it off, but I think it would be an enhanced version of what we currently have if districts are spread out fairly across the country.
     
  18. Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    75,358
    Likes Received:
    3,141
    No, that's your argument, and it is illogical. You're saying that you want some people's votes to count more so that they have equal amount of say. Doesn't make sense. And, again, that is very much against the purpose of the EC. The Senate was supposed to be our non-democratic institution. If you openly acknowledge that you think that democracy is bad, you can make an argument, though I'd still think you'd be able to come up with a better system than the current EC (like just explicitly saying that citizens in bigger states have their votes count less--so like Florida voters count 0.8 of average, etc.).

    It needs major adjustments to make it line up with the intention or to make it consistent with democratic values or rationality.

    Most people who think seriously about the issue realize that it's a bad system, but at any given time, one major faction (not always the same one) sees it as being in their partisan advantage to keep it so it's very hard to change. Most people have effectively given up on the idea, which is why it's not always a hot issue.
     
    kpt018 likes this.
  19. The ScorpioN "GET OVER HERE!" Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    Messages:
    23,046
    Likes Received:
    3,218
    Location:
    Netherrealm
    This. I urge all disillusioned voters to make sure the establishment feels the Bern.
     
  20. MMAisGod Ya keep pushing or ya quit. That simple.

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,854
    Likes Received:
    830
    Location:
    Apollo Beach, Florida
    It can't be my argument, as I am not hundreds of years old. It is "the" argument, since it is the one that has prevailed through time. If it wasn't, change would have came a long time ago. Black people aren't still 3/5ths of a person right? EC has withstood for a reason. Democracy is good, which is why we elect officials, and why the EC is in place. Unless you're saying that does not occur? Doesn't seem like the anti-democracy stance here. Also, wouldn't a "FL voters count less" be the same as "Vermont voters count more"? Just done in a different way? Many people have never lived in some states with populations of like 1mil or something, and I'd imagine their way of life and needs are vastly different than myself who grew up in FL and NY, so it would make no sense for all of the "me" people to be overrepresenting them. Unless I just don't care or something.

    It can be tweaked, I'm the first to say it should be, but I think suggestions that are too radical or outright removal implications altogether are undemocratic, and pretty much an attack on the Constitution itself (the latter being so, if argued to outright remove it).

    This is what I don't see. I rarely hear it brought up as an issue, outside of partisan-based election season. May 2021, no one anywhere will be talking about the EC. I can name 10 issues in an instant that are talked about nonstop, because people think there's a lot wrong with them or adjustments to them are urgently required. The fact that this issue gains minimal to no traction outside of a few months every 4 years highlights that most people at every level don't take it too seriously. Not that they gave up, they just don't think it's that important.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.