7 ms·

It's a shame they couldn't have ended the Electoral College error. It's very frustrating knowing how much better things could've turned out if the people who wo

It's a shame they couldn't have ended the Electoral College error. It's very frustrating knowing how much better things could've turned out if the people who won the popular vote had been able to take office instead of the losers.

roenxi 2y ago
There is a system explicitly designed not to always give the victory to the popular vote winner. If, on occasion, it does what is was explicitly designed to do that isn't really an error. "Haha, we have 50.5% of the vote now you have to do what we say" is workable but hardly a stronger moral position than securing 49.5% - particularly after looking at the turnout situation in the US. Philosophically if there is less than overwhelming majorities (talking 60%, 70% style figures) there is a lot of room to question whether a democratic consensus has been achieved.
- hacknews6 2y ago
  Yes, because as we all know, despite winning, 50.5% isn't enough of a margin, so actually, the loser should win instead.
- defrost 2y ago
  It sounds as if you're in favour of a coalition government in the absence of a significant margin.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    I know how I would set things up. But in the vast majority of cases there are objectively good and bad policies and the fact that people voted doesn't change whether something is a good idea or not. Nobody's voting in China as far as I know and they've seeing unbelievable rates of improvement in their living standards for the last few decades, it isn't that hard. The issue is that the political class (really any group of people) is inevitably stuffed with corrupt sociopaths, tends towards groupthink, is easily dissociated from reality and insists on using social proof rather than a scientific approach. The system as it stands is just a big complicated stick to wallop them with a Trump every so often if they really muck things up to the point where their incompetence triggers too many problems for enough people. The exact trigger % of people needed to engage the stick should be set sensibly but in practice the US is making do with around 20% of the population according to Wikipedia [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections#History_of_voter_turnout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...
    - Lienetic 2y ago
      Can you explain further how you've come to the conclusion that "in the vast majority of cases there are objectively good and bad policies?"
      - roenxi 2y ago
        I believe it would be straightforward to determine policy if we had an oracle with perfect knowledge that operated under a so-called veil of ignorance [0]. Getting good outcomes with a fair & reasonable minimum standard of lifestyle for the people who are the worst off isn't particularly hard. The problem with implementing that system is the lack of oracles and deficits of intellectual honesty. The key point is we don't need to vote to determine what works well. Whether a policy gets good results is just a fact regardless of whether or not people vote for it. And there are a large number of policies that were terrible the last time people tried them and will continue to be terrible even if the voting public decides to try them again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      > Nobody's voting in China as far as I know They vote from an approved list of candidates, but the following makes it sound as if, in principle anyway, there ought to be enough voting to keep the better apparatchiks and bounce the worse ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China#Direct_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China#Direct_elec... tl;dr: lots of voting; no ballot access EDIT: meanwhile, over on https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/中華人民共和國選舉 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/中華人民共和國選舉 we find the Party line: > 《人民日報》称，中国大陸的基层换届选举是世界上规模最大的基层民主选举。 ("The People's Daily* says the grass-roots general elections in mainland China are the largest [900 million voters] grass-roots democratic elections in the world.") * http://www.people.com.cn http://www.people.com.cn
      - gradschoolfail 2y ago
        Borodin might have kept Cordwainer at arms length ( or hardly ever fraternized with SYS except thru Eugene. (Purely from psychoanalysis) Have you checked with the Lords of Instrumentality? (Did 101 speak with the equivalent of a midwestern accent?)
Dalewyn 2y ago
Considering that the President, Chief Executive of the Federal Government, represents and is elected by the States, a nationwide popular vote election is a violation of State sovereignty. The United States of America is exactly what it says: A Union of sovereign States. It's very sad a lot of people don't understand this because they slept through civics/history class.
- abenga 2y ago
  Well, at the very least the EC votes should be adjusted from time to time to roughly match the population proportions, no?
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    It is. The 538 Electors are derived from the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress, with an additional 1 Representative and 2 Senators equivalents in Electors allocated to the District of Columbia (specifically the same count as the least populous State in the Union, currently Rhode Island with 1 Representative and 2 Senators). That means of the 538 Electors, 436 of them are allocated according to State population counts as recorded in the United States Census taken every 10 years.
    - hacknews6 2y ago
      And the outcomes are frequently undemocratic. Only in America is it fair for the smaller number to be bigger than the bigger number, which just so happens to conveniently benefit the minority, who then twist themselves into knots to "well, akshually" us all to death.
      - benmmurphy 2y ago
        In Australia the seats in the upper house of Parliament are strictly divided between the States with each receiving 12 seats regardless of their relative populations (two territories which are not proper states also receive 2 seats each). I suspect some other countries may have a similar federal model where there is some kind of barrier to stop larger states from being predatory towards smaller states. If you check wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism) you can see some other countries like Argentina have a similar model to Australia. I think in Australia there was probably similar historical reasons for the Senate as the Electoral College in the USA. The colonies in Australia were self-governing and then decided to create a central government and the Senate was a way to give the smaller colonies confidence they wouldn't be taken advantage of in the future.

roenxi 2y ago

There is a system explicitly designed not to always give the victory to the popular vote winner. If, on occasion, it does what is was explicitly designed to do that isn't really an error. "Haha, we have 50.5% of the vote now you have to do what we say" is workable but hardly a stronger moral position than securing 49.5% - particularly after looking at the turnout situation in the US. Philosophically if there is less than overwhelming majorities (talking 60%, 70% style figures) there is a lot of room to question whether a democratic consensus has been achieved.

hacknews6 2y ago
Yes, because as we all know, despite winning, 50.5% isn't enough of a margin, so actually, the loser should win instead.
defrost 2y ago
It sounds as if you're in favour of a coalition government in the absence of a significant margin.
- roenxi 2y ago
  I know how I would set things up. But in the vast majority of cases there are objectively good and bad policies and the fact that people voted doesn't change whether something is a good idea or not. Nobody's voting in China as far as I know and they've seeing unbelievable rates of improvement in their living standards for the last few decades, it isn't that hard. The issue is that the political class (really any group of people) is inevitably stuffed with corrupt sociopaths, tends towards groupthink, is easily dissociated from reality and insists on using social proof rather than a scientific approach. The system as it stands is just a big complicated stick to wallop them with a Trump every so often if they really muck things up to the point where their incompetence triggers too many problems for enough people. The exact trigger % of people needed to engage the stick should be set sensibly but in practice the US is making do with around 20% of the population according to Wikipedia [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections#History_of_voter_turnout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States...
  - Lienetic 2y ago
    Can you explain further how you've come to the conclusion that "in the vast majority of cases there are objectively good and bad policies?"
    - roenxi 2y ago
      I believe it would be straightforward to determine policy if we had an oracle with perfect knowledge that operated under a so-called veil of ignorance [0]. Getting good outcomes with a fair & reasonable minimum standard of lifestyle for the people who are the worst off isn't particularly hard. The problem with implementing that system is the lack of oracles and deficits of intellectual honesty. The key point is we don't need to vote to determine what works well. Whether a policy gets good results is just a fact regardless of whether or not people vote for it. And there are a large number of policies that were terrible the last time people tried them and will continue to be terrible even if the voting public decides to try them again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    > Nobody's voting in China as far as I know They vote from an approved list of candidates, but the following makes it sound as if, in principle anyway, there ought to be enough voting to keep the better apparatchiks and bounce the worse ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China#Direct_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China#Direct_elec... tl;dr: lots of voting; no ballot access EDIT: meanwhile, over on https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/中華人民共和國選舉 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/中華人民共和國選舉 we find the Party line: > 《人民日報》称，中国大陸的基层换届选举是世界上规模最大的基层民主选举。 ("The People's Daily* says the grass-roots general elections in mainland China are the largest [900 million voters] grass-roots democratic elections in the world.") * http://www.people.com.cn http://www.people.com.cn
    - gradschoolfail 2y ago
      Borodin might have kept Cordwainer at arms length ( or hardly ever fraternized with SYS except thru Eugene. (Purely from psychoanalysis) Have you checked with the Lords of Instrumentality? (Did 101 speak with the equivalent of a midwestern accent?)

Dalewyn 2y ago

Considering that the President, Chief Executive of the Federal Government, represents and is elected by the States, a nationwide popular vote election is a violation of State sovereignty. The United States of America is exactly what it says: A Union of sovereign States. It's very sad a lot of people don't understand this because they slept through civics/history class.

abenga 2y ago
Well, at the very least the EC votes should be adjusted from time to time to roughly match the population proportions, no?
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  It is. The 538 Electors are derived from the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress, with an additional 1 Representative and 2 Senators equivalents in Electors allocated to the District of Columbia (specifically the same count as the least populous State in the Union, currently Rhode Island with 1 Representative and 2 Senators). That means of the 538 Electors, 436 of them are allocated according to State population counts as recorded in the United States Census taken every 10 years.
  - hacknews6 2y ago
    And the outcomes are frequently undemocratic. Only in America is it fair for the smaller number to be bigger than the bigger number, which just so happens to conveniently benefit the minority, who then twist themselves into knots to "well, akshually" us all to death.
    - benmmurphy 2y ago
      In Australia the seats in the upper house of Parliament are strictly divided between the States with each receiving 12 seats regardless of their relative populations (two territories which are not proper states also receive 2 seats each). I suspect some other countries may have a similar federal model where there is some kind of barrier to stop larger states from being predatory towards smaller states. If you check wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism) you can see some other countries like Argentina have a similar model to Australia. I think in Australia there was probably similar historical reasons for the Senate as the Electoral College in the USA. The colonies in Australia were self-governing and then decided to create a central government and the Senate was a way to give the smaller colonies confidence they wouldn't be taken advantage of in the future.