[malandrew]

While it's not very substantive, this observation is correct so while it may be valid to downvote, it isn't valid to flag. The US is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic with an electoral college. The checks afforded by this system make it much harder than just manipulating a mob (which is another way to describe a democracy).

[arrosenberg]

It's both non-substantive and also incorrect. The United States is both a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. Ignoring the democracy part is a favorite trope of people who oppose it.

[eej71]

No one who supports the electoral college is opposed to the nature of democratic voting such as is used by the House of Representatives.

I believe it's a strength of the US that we have different voting methodologies for different roles. One for the House and a _different_ (yet also fair!) methodology for the President.

While these reasons were partially born as a result of compromise - the compromise is rooted in some good political theory.

We would be worse off if we only had one method and not the other. But we have both and we are stronger for it. I'd like to keep both. I think most ardent defenders of the electoral college would say the same.

[arrosenberg]

> yet also fair! ... While these reasons were partially born as a result of compromise - the compromise is rooted in some good political theory.

You really want to celebrate a compromise that was made to enable to states to maintain chattel slavery? The electoral college is only fair in 2020 if your goal is to elect candidates who have fewer votes nationally. It no longer serves any philosophical or practical purpose.

[eej71]

It is popular to tar the electoral college with the slavery brush. But I think that's deeply unfair to the overall value that it offers.

Slavery is merely one kind of divisive issue that can be used by a candidate to leverage seeds of distrust, disdain and disagreement to gain leverage over the other side. Even without slavery, there were other issues that divided North and South. Anglophile vs. Francophile. Agrarian vs. Industrial. Federalist vs. "Jeffersonian Repulicans". Federal powers. vs State. Small states vs. Big States.

Something like an electoral college itself encourages compromise over divisive issues. You can't make just an appeal to populous coastal regions to win. You can't just make an appeal to moneyed northern industrial cities. You can't just make an appeal to agrarian southern interests. As we continue to change shape, candidates have to learn its shape and pull back to the middle if they want to win.

I like that modern candidates really have to get out there to so many different states and "press the flesh". They need to know a substantial portion of the country. A national vote would slowly put an end to this. And I think that's dangerous.

Consider today's angry issues - the debate over the 2nd amendment or Roe v Wade. A national vote would result in situations where a candidate can take a very strident position on topics like this and win - but it would ultimately lead to more division rather than trying to wrestle ourselves to some sort of compromise.

So I think it's really unfortunate to dismiss the EC as though its some sort of slavery preserving institution. It really promotes compromise and chills regional passions even if they are a large majority.

[arrosenberg]

I don't think any of what you said supports keeping the EC. The slavery brush is just the most obvious reason to get rid of it. The electoral college has never increased unity in the country. Issues of federalism and culture are still unresolved, and the EC has only served to exacerbate those tensions by awarding the office to the popular loser multiple times in the last 20 years.

> Something like an electoral college itself encourages compromise over divisive issues.

I can name exactly one time this has happened and I don't think the Compromise of 1878 is something we should be holding up as good governance. Our current issues are a direct result of that compromise.

The EC only served to increase tensions at several points in our history - 1800, 1860, 1878,2000, 2016. I can't think of a single time it has served to increase unity or harmony. We have had a few individuals who were more-or-less consensus candidates (Monroe and Eisenhower), but that had nothing to do with the EC.

> You can't make just an appeal to populous coastal regions to win. You can't just make an appeal to moneyed northern industrial cities. You can't just make an appeal to agrarian southern interests. As we continue to change shape, candidates have to learn its shape and pull back to the middle if they want to win.

So instead the candidates spend their time raising money to run ads and pandering to about 6 swing states, which winds up leaving far more people out of the process than if every vote was worth, you know, one vote.

> I like that modern candidates really have to get out there to so many different states and "press the flesh". They need to know a substantial portion of the country. A national vote would slowly put an end to this. And I think that's dangerous.

See above. Trump literally knows New York City and nothing else. He lost by 3,000,000 votes. How is a national vote more dangerous than a system that happily elected an unpopular demagogue? Especially when the stated function of the EC is to prevent such an event.

> Consider today's angry issues - the debate over the 2nd amendment or Roe v Wade. A national vote would result in situations where a candidate can take a very strident position on topics like this and win - but it would ultimately lead to more division rather than trying to wrestle ourselves to some sort of compromise.

We've had the Electoral college for the entirety of the existence of those issues. They are more partisan than ever, with no compromise on the horizon (in large part thanks to the EC appointing 2 unpopular presidents in 16 years).

> So I think it's really unfortunate to dismiss the EC as though its some sort of slavery preserving institution. It really promotes compromise and chills regional passions even if they are a large majority.

You have demonstrated no proof of your claim. The fact that all of these issues are at historic highs really underscores the fact that what you are arguing simply isn't true.

[malandrew]

> I can't think of a single time it has served to increase unity or harmony

There basically would be no country without it.

If we got rid of it today, every state that relies on equal representation would be in their right mind to secede rather than be legislatively bullied by the more populated coastal states.

[malandrew]

Totally agree. The locking mechanism provided by having a bicameral house with different representation criteria and the electoral college are definitely features since they require a far higher level of consensus (and different forms of consensus, both in number of people and number of places) to make changes than a simple majority of people.

[majormajor]

Right now if you want to win the electoral college in the US you can largely rely on manipulating a smaller mob than you would have to otherwise...

[eej71]

You can keep calling it manipulation all you want. But I truly believe both HRC's message reached the voters and that Trump's message also reached the voters and they chose accordingly. Are you suggesting that their respective messages weren't heard?

At no point did someone fail to deliver their message. HRC's message (to the extent that it could be parsed) just didn't click with a lot of people. Trump's did.

[iron0013]

But by vote count, Clinton’s message clicked with more people than Trump’s did. That’s why he had to rely on the electoral college to “win” by negative-several-million votes.

[eej71]

Why dwell on an irrelevant number? It's not material to the presidential election. At all. There is no reason the mass media should even report it. It's not germane to the outcome. It only serves to confuse everyone.

The rules for winning a presidential election are well known and well established. You have to win a majority of the electors spread over many states. This means composing a message that broadly resonates with the country. Trump did that. HRC did not.

[iron0013]

You said Clinton’s message “...just didn't click with a lot of people. Trump's did.” That’s a numerical comparison. Are you saying that X > X+3000000? It’s an incoherent claim, so find another argument.

[eej71]

Can we agree that the popular vote is irrelevant to the presidential election? And if so - why impute my words with that interpretation?

[potatoz2]

Democracy and Republic are orthogonal the same way you can be libertarian and right-wing, libertarian and left-wing or authoritarian of either economic policy.

The U.S. is a democratic republic, because the power stems from the people (demo-), not from a small group of people (oligo-) or a single person (auto-).