tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post3102502293265801549..comments2024-03-28T05:14:02.071-05:00Comments on The Grumpy Economist: Electoral CollegeJohn H. Cochranehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04842601651429471525noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-11245816114655154702017-01-03T19:31:51.973-06:002017-01-03T19:31:51.973-06:00Professor,
A few back in this thread (dec29) you t...Professor,<br />A few back in this thread (dec29) you tried to get us back on track saying "The question is how voting rules induce the candidates and parties to shape their policies".<br /><br />No doubt the rules do affect parties' PR and speechwriting but I am unconvinced that the voting rules have any significant effect on parties' subsequent choice of policy.<br />Witness the current disconnect between Mr T's speeches and whatever policies might actually come to fruition. As has been alluded to before, somewhere here, it is a wide open unwritten book.<br />--E5<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-54090297766657172392017-01-03T15:23:37.505-06:002017-01-03T15:23:37.505-06:00I was very reluctantly for Brexit.I was very reluctantly for Brexit.Donald Pretarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14493535232127084725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-72606230458718776052017-01-03T00:42:18.884-06:002017-01-03T00:42:18.884-06:00Sorry Falstaff, I may be a bit thick. I don't...Sorry Falstaff, I may be a bit thick. I don't quite get what you are saying.<br />Please don't jump to the conclusion that I favor Mrs C over Mr T or vice versa. I feel more in the camp of Richard Feynman ..... you may have read his autobiography where he described how he thought a presidential candidate should conduct him/herself. And Feynman decried the fact that the publicity system is such that an honest candidate would get nowhere.<br /><br />You may have noticed that my complaint is not against voters but against the folks (media, principally) who withhold information, offer up disinformation, and generally abuse the trust of those (voters) who are trying their best to make a good decision.<br /><br />To quote one of my thoughtful conservative friends "population 350 million and these are the best two candidates we can come up with?".<br />Pretty much the same complaint as from my "opposed-by-conservatives" friends.<br />--E5<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-86200523430762560092017-01-02T22:44:29.368-06:002017-01-02T22:44:29.368-06:00I've heard the "electoral college require...I've heard the "electoral college requires a geographically diverse support base" argument many times before. But that seems incorrect. On the contrary, the electoral college seems to me to actually narrow the possible base of support. We have an electoral college right now and politicians openly say that only about 15 states really "matter". We call those "swing states". Consider Republicans who live in CA, KY, and OH. Those people care about very different things. If we had a popular vote system, a Republican candidate could go to any of the three states and court those voters. Instead, the CA votes /as well as/ the KY votes are essentially ignored because they are "safe". Only the OH Republicans are viewed as important to presidential candidates, even though KY is more Republican, and ultimately you don't see Republicans making trips to KY or CA. I agree that regional diversity is important. The House and Senate already do so (the Senate by apportioning seats evenly, and the House by having a floor of at least 1 seat per state). It is wrong to get geographical diversity by devaluing people's vote within an election simply because of where they live. It is nothing more than an arbitrary circumspection of one person, one vote. (To give you a sense of how arbitrary it is, someone showed how if one redrew the borders of the US ever so slightly, Clinton would have won the past election. This is not so improbable; all three states have squiggly borders. https://medium.com/@khayeswilson/clinton-would-have-won-if-the-united-states-looked-like-this-7b9c844b76a9#.qwdzokrhx)Evan Zimmermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06077341599307131211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-72977477630585267912017-01-02T22:34:55.786-06:002017-01-02T22:34:55.786-06:00"(thank you ananymous-who-addressed-Wayne-Cha..."(thank you ananymous-who-addressed-Wayne-Chang."<br /><br />I never said all votes are like that. A portion of them are and they will always be.<br /><br />I would have liked to see you asserting your view under a Democrat President.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-8403606944011708392017-01-02T20:39:00.030-06:002017-01-02T20:39:00.030-06:00AnonymousE5: In my first reply I was implying that...AnonymousE5: In my first reply I was implying that irrational voting will always exist. So it should be a constant to the broader picture, not a problem to mitigate. I can see now that I could have worded it better despite the fact my sentence is irrelevant to what the EC actually does.<br /><br />On the other hand, you didn't follow the flow of the replies. Someone said the status quo needs to change. I said status quo is too general and the whole protest focuses around EC. And, then, the question to be asked is "is EC a truly bad mechanism?".<br /><br />Finally, I agree with you that the media have turned it into a show. It feels like a group therapy for the left.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-61988346662956355882017-01-02T17:42:22.507-06:002017-01-02T17:42:22.507-06:00The author Nevil Shute (_In the Wet_, 1953) propos...The author Nevil Shute (_In the Wet_, 1953) proposed a novel idea: the "multiple vote"—everyone gets one vote, but additional votes can be earned by individuals for meritorious service, up to a maximum of seven. Examples included awards for military service, successfully raising children to a certain age, and educational attainment.<br />JZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12994372644670111315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-45779529825088919722017-01-02T17:12:26.841-06:002017-01-02T17:12:26.841-06:00AnonymousE5: Two back to back posts with the same ...AnonymousE5: Two back to back posts with the same message, so I think I understand you: the electorate are fools that are easily led by the bread and circus, and your primary evidence is, I believe, the outcome of the election. They were fooled, but not you and yours.<br /><br />Consider this: your condescension, voiced by many to include Clinton and the establishment in Washington, is the reason for Trump. An echo has rung across the land in the last many months, not only criticizing a flawed candidate, but this time also the people that might consider him. And they say Trump was unprecedented.<br /><br />Starting a couple decades ago, those that paid little heed to politics started voicing objection to unchecked borders. The response from the like of the WSJ was not compromise but literally 'open borders'. In more recent elections,2012, the objections got louder, still coming from people who otherwise would have no truck with orange billionaires, but were directly impacted by low wage labor. Response: racists, deplorables, and the global economy needs cheap labor. This time the call became Immigration G#%D%^m It! You respond, beauty pageant. Keep it up if you want more of the same.Falstaffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06865552505521389155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-16090143556397616452017-01-02T12:04:11.336-06:002017-01-02T12:04:11.336-06:00Anonymous anonymous,
I don't see that you got ...Anonymous anonymous,<br />I don't see that you got my point at all. I am not protesting the EC.<br />My complaint is that corporate media have turned the process of choosing the person who presides over the busiest economy in the world into, essentially, a beauty pageant.<br />--E5Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-21142698383094490782017-01-02T06:37:47.891-06:002017-01-02T06:37:47.891-06:00The anonymous E5 must be another persistent protes...The anonymous E5 must be another persistent protester who, in the end, agrees indirectly with me.<br /><br />"Neither electoral college nor one-person-one-vote can do anything to avert the consequences resulting from the vast majority of votes being equivalent to fan mail."<br /><br />So what is the point of replacing the electoral college with the one-person-one-vote system? Because at that scenario Clinton MIGHT have won?<br /><br />If it was truly a bad system then why is it still there? I imagine that my opinion is irrelevant. <br /><br />That's why I will give two sources so you can comment and mock them as much as you like.<br /><br />https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-electoral-college-works-why-it-works-well<br /><br />http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-54837062792205775812017-01-01T22:42:07.364-06:002017-01-01T22:42:07.364-06:00Wow, what a flurry happens when one (i.e. me) has ...Wow, what a flurry happens when one (i.e. me) has 2 days of inattention!<br />"if the states were actually fictitious, baseless concepts, as asserted here" (Falstaff)<br />My point was not that the state boundaries have no real significance. My point was that they do not derive from physical realities. They do exist, like you say, as cultural realities. I did also point out that significant cultural boundaries exist separately from state boundaries. Without even referring to the obvious rural/urban distinction.<br /><br />Yes, Professor, I have wandered (naughty me) from the original point (EC vs 1p1v) by asserting that the point is unimportant relative to the situation we have in which votes are essentially fanmail (thank you ananymous-who-addressed-Wayne-Chang.<br /><br />--E5Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-51567785425270785882017-01-01T22:07:37.610-06:002017-01-01T22:07:37.610-06:00The anonymous above hit the nail on the head .... ...The anonymous above hit the nail on the head .... the problem being "fanboyism-voting in presidential elections" .... but somehow thinks that the electoral college has some magic ability to mitigate the problem.<br />Neither electoral college nor one-person-one-vote can do anything to avert the consequences resulting from the vast majority of votes being equivalent to fan mail.<br />--E5Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-34965727469378721922017-01-01T12:05:13.880-06:002017-01-01T12:05:13.880-06:00Dear persistent Wayne Chang (and any other persist...Dear persistent Wayne Chang (and any other persistent protester at the current political affairs)<br /><br />I know this will create tensions but before I lay out my own opinion, I will give a few references.<br /><br />More specifically, professor John Cochrane in 2012 said:<br />"It looks possible that Gov. Romney will lose the electoral college and win the popular vote. One may forgive liberals bemoaning the electoral college when George W. Bush won. But I hope that people who express reverence for the constitution and the wisdom of the founding fathers will do so again even if they lose. It's a good system. If they lose, Republicans need to find a new coalition that delivers small, widespread majorities. We are not immune from the tides of history pulling other countries apart. "<br /><br />And in 2016 the same person says:<br />"What has become very clear to me since the election is a fact probably blindingly obvious to real students of politics -- that's not at all how it works. Most people vote by cultural affinity, brand, values, and a sense of personal identity."<br /><br /><br />If these two quotes don't give any clues of what is at stake, I don't know what will. It should be obvious but then again rationality is not highly correlated with education. <br /><br />My opinion is that the arguments you provide are impressionistic drivel. You are arguing against the status quo but this isn't about the status quo. It is about the electoral college and how it mitigates fanboyism-voting in presidential elections.<br /><br /><br />I won't go into the process of replying to every argument. I believe there are other sources that can do that better than me.<br /><br />However, I want to reply to the last point of yours, because you mentioned the Iraq War as an example.<br /><br />George Bush won the presidential elections in both 2000 and 2004. <br /><br />In 2000, he won the electoral vote with 271 (+5 from the other) while his popular vote was 50.4 million (he lost it by approximately 500 thousand less).<br /><br />In 2004, he won the electoral vote with 286 (+35 from the other) and he also won the popular vote with 62 million (roughly 3 million more than the other candidate).<br /><br />The Iraq War was initiated in March 2003 and the elections were held in November 2004. The same person who was responsible for the invasion, won the popular vote, 20 months later, in both relative and absolute terms.<br /><br />People died, the electoral college has always been there and the president you were implying (I have a feeling it wasn't Obama because of obamacare) received nearly 12 million votes more than before.<br /><br />Again, if this doesn't give any solid clue, I don't know what will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-51203506888538324612016-12-30T11:48:01.995-06:002016-12-30T11:48:01.995-06:00A Sanders: the hysteria lies with those who would ...A Sanders: the hysteria lies with those who would change the fundamental federalism of this constitution that have been in place for centuries.<br /><br />The outcome of any particular election doesn't threaten union. Changing the state based participation in the EC/Senate/constituional amendments does.Falstaffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06865552505521389155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-7177287458136157012016-12-29T17:19:04.775-06:002016-12-29T17:19:04.775-06:00Dear Professor Cochrane, Falstaff, and other suppo...Dear Professor Cochrane, Falstaff, and other supporters of the status quo (Electoral College + Winner-Take-All),<br /><br />I summarize existing arguments along with responses:<br /><br />1. The status quo is more desirable than a popular vote for President.<br />Pros for the existing system must overcome the significant con that it effectively disenfranchises the vast majority of the population. A vote in swing states is worth 20-50+ times that of one in heavy red or blue states (FiveThirtyEight Voter Power Index). In 2016, 94% of campaign events were held in 12 states representing only 31% of the population. When more than 2/3 of the country's people don't matter, this creates huge distorting incentives and undermines the fundamental principle of our representative democracy. Imagine if we had a market system where price signals were distorted by 20-50x! That would be unacceptable and be a first-order threat to our market economy. Why is it that every other country in the world that's tried an Electoral College system abandoned it? The simple answer is that it's a bad system. <br /> <br />a. The status quo is desirable because it lowers polarization.<br />This is Professor Cochrane's original point, but I argue in my previous comment that the intuition is flawed. It's just as likely that the existing system exacerbates polarization. Professor Cochrane provides no empirical support, so this claim is just an unsubstantiated hypothetical. <br /><br />b. The status quo is desirable because it preserves our federal system of government. <br />The Presidential election is for a position at the national government dealing with national issues (defense, trade policy, etc.). A federal system argues for power to devolve to the most local level that policies affect. But this says nothing about how positions in the national government should be filled. A system where states dictate even national policies is a confederation, which we abandoned in 1789 because it didn't work. <br /><br />c. The status quo is desirable because it preserves the power of people living in rural areas. <br />Margaret Thatcher said, "There is no such thing as society. There is a living tapestry of men and women." Similarly, there's no such thing as rural or urban areas, only individual citizens. The only thing worse than the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of a small minority. <br /><br />d. The status quo is desirable because it avoids recounts that would be logistical nightmares.<br />Really? So we disenfranchise 2/3 of the population? This is an argument for a better voting infrastructure. If Indonesia and Brazil can (with 80% and 64% of our population), surely we can too. <br /><br />2. Changes toward a popular vote for President are unconstitutional.<br />Unconstitutionality is a weak argument if what it's defending is undesirable. We passed many constitutional amendments ensuring former slaves (14th), African Americans (15th, 24th), women (19th), DC residents (23rd) and people over eighteen (26th) can vote. Why not pass one ensuring everyone's vote actually counts? Besides, a national popular vote need not require an amendment (National Popular Vote Compact). Even a simple proportional allocation of electors (rather than winner-take-all) substantially reduces the chance of the popular winner losing. Since proportional allocation more closely follows the spirit of Constitutional equal protection, the existing winner-take-all system is actually less Constitutional!<br /><br />3. Changes toward a popular vote for President are irrelevant.<br />Two of the last four Presidential elections are affected, with huge foreign policy (e.g. Iraq War) and domestic policy (e.g. likely repeal of ObamaCare) implications. Of course a more educated electorate will be helpful. But the status quo makes close elections more likely thus increasing the susceptibility of elections to a poorly informed electorate. The status quo also incentivizes the vast majority of people living in non-swing states to stay uninformed.Wayne Changhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00459852280658727125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-56174845752953247072016-12-29T17:14:36.443-06:002016-12-29T17:14:36.443-06:00Rafal,
Thanks for the heads up on the Williams v....Rafal,<br /><br />Thanks for the heads up on the Williams v. Rhodes case. <br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Rhodes<br /><br />"The District Court, composed of three judges, held the election laws unconstitutional, and granted relief only to the extent of allowing write-in ballots, but refused to order the names of the parties (Independent Party and Socialist Party to be printed on the ballots."<br /><br />Presumably, votes cast for write in candidates at the time were not even counted under Ohio law? The article mentions that "A three-judge District Court held those laws unconstitutional..", but does not identify the codified laws enacted by the Ohio legislature that were struck down.<br /><br />On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was ordered that the Independent Party have their candidate's name typed on the ballot because they obtained the required signatures totaling 15% of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election but was denied ballot position because the February deadline had passed.<br /><br />All that being said, it is clear that the writers of the Constitution did not want the Presidential election to be decided by a popular vote.<br /><br />http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php<br /><br />"A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones."FRestlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09440916887619001941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-78303898958581741092016-12-29T15:49:21.153-06:002016-12-29T15:49:21.153-06:00This is a puzzling comment. Why do we have one pe...This is a puzzling comment. Why do we have one person one vote in literally every other case? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04223579458055662262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-28531227241851397732016-12-29T15:48:15.052-06:002016-12-29T15:48:15.052-06:00Falstaff, we've had two minority of plurality ...Falstaff, we've had two minority of plurality presidents and somehow the union persists. Please stop the hysterical line of argumentation. Sometimes small states and large states don't have their champions win right? The difference is that a sizable minority in each state will have selected the winner. And everyone's vote is respected equally.<br /><br />The point of size comparison is better but it is not persuasive to me at all. We've already had EC issues 2x (bush/gore and Hayes/Tilden)...the difference is a national vote would have neatly resolved each crisis.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04223579458055662262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-29731137084107852652016-12-29T15:42:13.840-06:002016-12-29T15:42:13.840-06:00Excuse me professor but that is exactly my point. ...Excuse me professor but that is exactly my point. Presidential politics is entirely geared around the preferences of the 20% of the states where both parties feel they have a chance of winning. In a a national popular vote, would we have a candidate making the centerpiece of his platform a 35% Tariff and magically bring back jobs that will not come back to the 'rust belt'?<br /><br /><br />And I think there is a much bigger problem that you keep ignoring. We are more divided than ever as a country. The EC isn't the only catalyst for this situation. But the EC is in fact pushing us towards two countries (flat land and coast land). There would be far less pressure to agglomerate into blue or red states in a system where your vote matters across the country for your Head of State....the person who is responsible for making nominations to your judicial branch.<br /><br />I'm a big fan of federalism, but I think the EC is long overdue for elimination.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04223579458055662262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-83600157754168076452016-12-29T15:04:09.423-06:002016-12-29T15:04:09.423-06:00You guys have lost track of the main point. The qu...You guys have lost track of the main point. The question is not how to aggregate votes given a fixed set of candidates and political preferences. The question is how voting rules induce the candidates and parties to shape their policies. John H. Cochranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04842601651429471525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-22845401199717927472016-12-29T14:52:26.870-06:002016-12-29T14:52:26.870-06:00From many of the comments, maybe we need a more re...From many of the comments, maybe we need a more realistic (or less idealistic) view of just what the democratic process is.<br /><br />http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/T/T01/T01797_10.jpg<br /><br />https://twitter.com/tPfit87ter/status/796061016454877185<br />Vic Volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05011603728944612747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-18286922165095279732016-12-29T14:24:36.371-06:002016-12-29T14:24:36.371-06:00"No more questioning legitimacy of the winner..."No more questioning legitimacy of the winner. No more marginalization felt by people who don't like the monotony of the two party system."<br /><br />Bizarre. 1) People in small states won't question the "legitimacy of the winner", because they will have every right and motivation to leave the union. There will be no US as we now know it. <br /><br />2) France is smaller by area than *one* US state, Alaska, and has the roughly the population of *two* US states, California and Texas. French governmental procedures are no more a model for a continental nation than are the procedures of some island nation a model for France.Falstaffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06865552505521389155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-7768891090121085142016-12-29T12:48:38.461-06:002016-12-29T12:48:38.461-06:00It's probably true that it is politically unte...It's probably true that it is politically untenable. But the key questions that are being discussed are (as much as I can surmise) are:<br /><br />1. Is it a good process to follow? My answer is no. Large states and small states are ignored if there is a greater than 10 point difference between D and R. Increasingly, these tight contests lead to dubious voter fraud claims and wastes energy on vote suppression efforts to maintain dominance. This would not be happening in a national popular vote...<br />2. If it is not a good process than is it at least preserving some national representation of the will of the people? No. It never did (see above point about our first presidents...all of whom resided in large states). Further today's map is essentially becoming a 'border' party vs an interior. Virginia, NC and Florida are already swing states. Georgia, Texas and Arizona to follow. demographics should not be the crucial driver in either parties stance towards governing America but it is what the EC is driving us toward.<br /><br /><br />I hesitate to say this given that Le Pen has made the final round but I'd like to have a 3 round process which is similar in principle to the French presidential process:<br /><br />Rd. 1: party primaries which are consolidated into 4-5 regional election going from Jan-June. <br />Rd. 2: A vote after the conventions in September where the winner must have 50%+1 to have a winner. Failing that (which we have done more often lately)...<br />Rd. 3: the top two go to a final round in November. A winner must have the required 50% + 1 and will, always. <br /><br />No more questioning legitimacy of the winner. No more marginalization felt by people who don't like the monotony of the two party system.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04223579458055662262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-1588408170756309782016-12-29T10:45:46.684-06:002016-12-29T10:45:46.684-06:00Ok, fair point on the electoral college and your p...Ok, fair point on the electoral college and your point about 2012 is both well taken and one that needd to be made, sadly. Good for you. Your consistency is admirable. Zero snark intended.<br /><br />But you can't open with an extremely broad generalization about Democrats and then claim that you are not partisan. "Democrats" think something about the electoral college? Good to know. Snark intended.<br /><br />In fairness, I generalize broadly about Republicans, but in the plain light of day. Not that it matters.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248645887343991539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-5978485080007805452016-12-28T21:20:58.932-06:002016-12-28T21:20:58.932-06:00Frank, your literal interpretation of Article II o...Frank, your literal interpretation of Article II of the Constitution was rejected by the Supreme Court in Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968). Please read pp. 28 and 29. ("There of course can be no question but that this section does grant extensive power to the States to pass laws regulating the selection of electors. But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution."). rafalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03627684458558457142noreply@blogger.com