Ok, right maybe you did the 54-46 silly hypothetical instead. Which is a marginally more sophisticated version of the same fatuous (il)logic, to which the answer is, “All votes should be equally weighted and the candidate with the most votes wins.”
-
-
Replying to @yeselson
1888 remains a neat illustration. Cleveland won a narrow plurality, on the strength of winning the (white) South 61-37. The EC contained the effect of that, so he lost bc he won only NJ & CT outside the old slave states.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
That’s interesting as a matter of political history, but it doesn’t change the normative point. In a presidential system (as opposed to a parliamentary one), votes should be weighted the same. Change the rules and it’s hard to know who would have gotten the most votes in such a
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson
A page of political history is worth a volume of normative logic.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
You would find anybody on twitter more sympathetic to historical logic or scholarship than me—people here mock me for it. But the I’ll stand by the normative logic of “majority rules” and “all votes should be equally weighted.”
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson
There's 2 unbridgeable Right/Left (defining both broadly) divides. 1-Right believes states (& place, generally) matters in a non-arbitrary way. Left doesn't. 2-Right sees that eliminating the EC would require comprehensive revision of the American voting system; Left wants this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
As for 1: the question of course is: matter for what? No, we shouldn’t weight voters differently and privilege states; (And generally, of course place *matters*—that’s really a straw man!) 2) The American electoral state is completely dysfunctional. By what metric would you say
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson @baseballcrank
it’s the equal of any other advanced democracy? Is there any logic to partisan state election officials?! Who would invent a system like that today?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yeselson
How many advanced democracies choose a head of government by national popular vote?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
They’re parliamentary systems. But you go beyond defending the EC. You don’t think we should even reform the system as a whole—so we should let national elections be governed by partisan state officials? How does that make any sense? And to the extent the constitution itself
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I think our system has proven remarkably durable & resilient in comparison to any other, & should not be tampered with lightly.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
Lightly? No. How about seriously recognizing massive flaws in supervision, voting access and rights, voting equipment, and national standards? There’s nothing there to generate and no reason not to improve it. Indiana closing polls at 6?That’s idiotic no matter your politics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.