Thesh wrote:Can you give actual examples of real things in which there is a problem you think democracy doesn't fix?
Just about every club, committee, or community group in which I've been a governing member has had in-groups that pretty much run the show. Democracy doesn't "fix" the problem, it is
the problem; the problem being that it's the same in-group making every decision, so every decision goes the same way despite there being a significant minority wanting to go in a different direction. That significant minority becomes irrelevant and those people tend to drop out and get replaced by new (and irrelevant) blood while the (small) majority stays on, as they are getting everything they want. I won't specify the groups themselves, but I've seen it play again and again. Most recently I described what happened in a prior group I was in when this group was moving in that direction; I was assured it would never happen, and then within three months it played out exactly the same way.
Thesh wrote:You obviously have some point that you want to make that you are trying to steer the conversation to it, so just make it already.
I said it several times. We're talking about solutions when we haven't agreed on the problem. Specifically, the role of the EC in US presidential elections is not the problem
. The problem is that we don't agree on how to choose
, we only know the (partisan) outcome we want. That's a poor way to reform an electoral process.
Further, we don't seem to want
to agree, or even discuss it, in any abstract sense. Instead of discussing green vs yellow (nobody has a preference), we end up discussing red vs blue (everyone knows which is better).
Ranbot wrote:Good luck explaining that to people whose political power is systematically reduced to benefit someone else.
This is always the case. But I'm not even taking as stand here; this is why I'm addressing green vs yellow. If you don't know which side you'd be on, what's the best (most representative) outcome? That disarms the "power being reduced" aspect of the discussion.
Ranbot wrote:...no evidence in history that the EC protects vulnerable minorities from majorities as it's purports to.
That's not why it was created; that's why the Senate was created. The EC was created so "wise people who could be entrusted with the awesome task of choosing" could select our president; we'd select the wise people. As it turns out, the Founding Fathers weren't all that smart; almost instantly the set of "wise people" became a smoke filled room. The EC was also created because we are a nation of States, not a nation of People. You can legitimately argue that it shouldn't be that way, but that's a question that needs a bigger context. As to the argument that the EC marginalizes "safe" areas, that would be true in every concievable election system. You don't preach to the converted, unless you want a mob. (Yes, arguably that's what happened.)
Thesh wrote:...[representatives] should have equal power to each other and be as representative of the population as possible. The more representatives you have, the more democratic your government is...
The second part is only true if the representatives are chosen... er... representatively. What I'm arguing is that democracy does not ensure this
, and in fact can easily make it worse. What is "worse"? That
is what I'm asking, but in an abstract sense, not in a partisan one. What's best: the president most people love, or the president fewest people hate? The answer to this question has a lot of bearing on how we should select one.