Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

[Forty Two]

Of course it does. There is nothing unjust about the system, or the result.

If the country elected the president by a vote of the Congress, that would be fine. If the country elected the President by giving each state one vote, and determining the will of the states by vote of state legislatures, there would be nothing unjust about it.

In the UK, for example, they don't vote for their head of government. Only the voters in each MP's locale vote for that MP, and then they appoint a PM as head of government based on a vote of the members of parliament. It's very likely that there were numerous times when the prime minister of the UK would not have won the popular vote if put to it. And, not having a popular vote for the head of government is not, obviously, unjust.

The US does a modified popular vote, where people vote for the President and Vice President in order to direct electors to go to Washington and cast their vote, and the vote is not determinative. Nothing unjust about that. It would be perfectly just and lawful to allow the electors to use their own judgment and vote for a candidate that did not win the popular vote in that state.

In fact, recall that the Hillary camp was scrambling around at the end, in a last ditch effort to have electors vote for Hillary instead of Trump, despite the will of the people in the state that appointed the electors. Where the law would allow the elector to cast a different vote, there would be nothing unjust about it, would there?

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed. It's just a different system. It's not like an electoral college cast its votes in favour of a candidate that didn't win the popular vote in that region is it?

[Forty Two]

Indeed. It's just a different system. It's not like an electoral college cast its votes in favour of a candidate that didn't win the popular vote in that region is it?

Generally, no. There was, during the election of 2016, talk of whether rogue electors could protest Trump's win by voting for Hillary, and there have been instances where individual electors have voted differently, but I don't think there was ever a time when the electors of the state voted against the popular will of that state. I think one or maybe 2 states split the electors in accordance with the popular vote.

However, interestingly, nothing officially says that a State must hold a popular vote, except State laws in each state. So, technically, a State could opt to stop holding popular elections for the President and use a different method, such as a vote of the state legislature. There is nothing in the US Constitution or federal law that would require a popular vote. The federal involvement is to ensure equal protection, so if there is a vote then the vote has to be consistent with equal protection of the laws.

I would bet there would be a major hubbub, and somebody would make the argument that the longstanding practice of holding popular votes for the President means that doing away with it in a given state is some sort of constitutional issue, but it would be a complex argument outside the text of the US Constitution.

[Seabass]

Of course it does. There is nothing unjust about the system, or the result.

If the country elected the president by a vote of the Congress, that would be fine. If the country elected the President by giving each state one vote, and determining the will of the states by vote of state legislatures, there would be nothing unjust about it.

In the UK, for example, they don't vote for their head of government. Only the voters in each MP's locale vote for that MP, and then they appoint a PM as head of government based on a vote of the members of parliament. It's very likely that there were numerous times when the prime minister of the UK would not have won the popular vote if put to it. And, not having a popular vote for the head of government is not, obviously, unjust.

The US does a modified popular vote, where people vote for the President and Vice President in order to direct electors to go to Washington and cast their vote, and the vote is not determinative. Nothing unjust about that. It would be perfectly just and lawful to allow the electors to use their own judgment and vote for a candidate that did not win the popular vote in that state.

In fact, recall that the Hillary camp was scrambling around at the end, in a last ditch effort to have electors vote for Hillary instead of Trump, despite the will of the people in the state that appointed the electors. Where the law would allow the elector to cast a different vote, there would be nothing unjust about it, would there?

One Wyoming vote is worth three California votes. I would say that that's fairly unjust. Of course you don't think it's unjust, but you think Trump is a good president, so that makes sense.

[Forty Two]

One Wyoming vote is not worth three California votes. We don't have a national popular election for the President. The States vote for the President via the electoral college. That's not unjust.

It's no more unjust than Parliamentary systems where the Parliament (legislature) chooses the head of government without any popular vote at all.

My understanding that the system is not unjust has nothing to do with Trump, as I have been aware of the system's workings for 40 years. It wasn't unjust then, and it's not now. The current denizen of the white house does not determine, for me, it's justness, although I'm sure there are some on this website who are now critical of the system who would now be defending it if roles were reversed. I'm not in that camp. Had Hillary won the election but lost the popular vote, I would not be taking any issue with the system at all.

[Rum]

I agree as it happens. There is a tendency for those who don't like a particular outcome to want to change the rules.

As it also happens I think the UK system is fairer - or more representative anyway. A party lives or dies by its policies. They 'sell' the policies to the public during the campaign period and if you like them more than the other guy's you vote for that person to be your area representative in Parliament. The party with the most representatives (MPs) in Parliament can carry the majority of votes for any given piece of legislation and therefore form the government.

There are of course down sides to this. Not least that you can have a government in power who have fewer overall votes (popular votes if you like) than the opposition. But at least you know what policies you are getting. Seems to me Presidential candidates have a tendency to make up policy on the hoof to grab votes from the margins a great deal of the time.

[Forty Two]

Indeed, those are all fair points.

I would add that your parliamentary system splits the system into two main parts, not three. You have your legislature and "government" (enforcement/executive) together. In the US, the legislature (parliament/congress) are separated from the "government" (executive/enforcement of the laws). So, your ministries answer to Parliament, and our equivalent of your ministries are the various executive branch departments, and they answer to the President.

So, that major structural difference provides some justification for the difference in the elections. In the US, we do directly elect our representatives in Congress. But, if we were to do it like the Brits, then we'd have Congress voting on the President, in which case Trump would also have won, because the Republicans control the House of Representatives.

[Seabass]

One Wyoming vote is not worth three California votes.

Yes it is.

We don't have a national popular election for the President. The States vote for the President via the electoral college. That's not unjust.

It's no more unjust than Parliamentary systems where the Parliament (legislature) chooses the head of government without any popular vote at all.

In Parliamentary systems, it is understood that people vote for a party, not a person. You are comparing apples with oranges.

My understanding that the system is not unjust has nothing to do with Trump, as I have been aware of the system's workings for 40 years. It wasn't unjust then, and it's not now. The current denizen of the white house does not determine, for me, it's justness, although I'm sure there are some on this website who are now critical of the system who would now be defending it if roles were reversed. I'm not in that camp. Had Hillary won the election but lost the popular vote, I would not be taking any issue with the system at all.

Red herring. In any case, my dislike of the electoral college long predates Trump's presidency.

[Rum]

Indeed, those are all fair points.

I would add that your parliamentary system splits the system into two main parts, not three. You have your legislature and "government" (enforcement/executive) together. In the US, the legislature (parliament/congress) are separated from the "government" (executive/enforcement of the laws). So, your ministries answer to Parliament, and our equivalent of your ministries are the various executive branch departments, and they answer to the President.

So, that major structural difference provides some justification for the difference in the elections. In the US, we do directly elect our representatives in Congress. But, if we were to do it like the Brits, then we'd have Congress voting on the President, in which case Trump would also have won, because the Republicans control the House of Representatives.

This goes some way to explaining how your President can 'shut down' government when the budget isn't to his satisfaction. That seems to me to be a recipe for instability. The thought of our Prime Minister 'shutting down' our civil service here is inconceivable.

[JimC]

All 42 needs to do is to watch all the episodes of "Yes Minister" and Yes Prime Minister"...

[Seabass]

Indeed, those are all fair points.

I would add that your parliamentary system splits the system into two main parts, not three. You have your legislature and "government" (enforcement/executive) together. In the US, the legislature (parliament/congress) are separated from the "government" (executive/enforcement of the laws). So, your ministries answer to Parliament, and our equivalent of your ministries are the various executive branch departments, and they answer to the President.

So, that major structural difference provides some justification for the difference in the elections. In the US, we do directly elect our representatives in Congress. But, if we were to do it like the Brits, then we'd have Congress voting on the President, in which case Trump would also have won, because the Republicans control the House of Representatives.

This goes some way to explaining how your President can 'shut down' government when the budget isn't to his satisfaction. That seems to me to be a recipe for instability. The thought of our Prime Minister 'shutting down' our civil service here is inconceivable.

The president can't shut down the government. Congress can, by choosing not to pass a budget. And yes, it is a recipe for instability.

And of course only the Republicans do it, because they are a party of extremists and sociopaths whose raison d'etre is to turn the US into a third-world theocracy.

[Forty Two]

One Wyoming vote is not worth three California votes.

Yes it is.

Isn't, because we don't have direct national elections for the President. We have state election that elect electors to go vote for the President. So, a vote in Wyoming counts as 1 in that regard, and a vote in california counts as 1. Wyoming has 3 votes and California has like 55 (I didn't look it up, so I might be off a couple either way). So, Wyoming has more votes than it would have if its votes were only allocated based on population, that's true. But, that's different than one person's vote in Wyoming being worth more than in California.

We don't have a national popular election for the President. The States vote for the President via the electoral college. That's not unjust.

It's no more unjust than Parliamentary systems where the Parliament (legislature) chooses the head of government without any popular vote at all.

In Parliamentary systems, it is understood that people vote for a party, not a person. You are comparing apples with oranges.

In our system, it's understood that people vote for electors, and that states have a number of electors equal to their Congressman and Senators.

And you don't vote for parties in Parliamentary elections. You vote for candidates, in the district, for member of parliament. We do exactly that here too - we just call members of parliament "Representatives." If we wanted to mimic the civilized parliamentary countries, we'd have Congress elect the President for us. In the UK they do not cast a vote for "The Tories" or "Labour" at the ballot box. They vote for one of the people running for Parliament in their district.

My understanding that the system is not unjust has nothing to do with Trump, as I have been aware of the system's workings for 40 years. It wasn't unjust then, and it's not now. The current denizen of the white house does not determine, for me, it's justness, although I'm sure there are some on this website who are now critical of the system who would now be defending it if roles were reversed. I'm not in that camp. Had Hillary won the election but lost the popular vote, I would not be taking any issue with the system at all.

Red herring. In any case, my dislike of the electoral college long predates Trump's presidency.

I never said it didn't. Mine was not a red herring, as I was responding to the accusation that I only think the EC is fair because of Trump.

[JimC]

Just because it's "the system" doesn't mean that it passes the fairness test from a neutral observer. You have a president elected with significantly less votes than his opponent. No amount of hand-waving about "the system" takes away from such a result being a travesty of democracy.

[Rum]

Just because it's "the system" doesn't mean that it passes the fairness test from a neutral observer. You have a president elected with significantly less votes than his opponent. No amount of hand-waving about "the system" takes away from such a result being a travesty of democracy.

Well it is when we don't get the result we want..

I'm not aware of a system that is truly democratic when you have multiple political parties involved and block voting of one kind or another. Even PR results in some strange arrangements with minority groups effectively holding the dominant party to ransom to get their agenda on the table.

[Forty Two]

Indeed, those are all fair points.

I would add that your parliamentary system splits the system into two main parts, not three. You have your legislature and "government" (enforcement/executive) together. In the US, the legislature (parliament/congress) are separated from the "government" (executive/enforcement of the laws). So, your ministries answer to Parliament, and our equivalent of your ministries are the various executive branch departments, and they answer to the President.

So, that major structural difference provides some justification for the difference in the elections. In the US, we do directly elect our representatives in Congress. But, if we were to do it like the Brits, then we'd have Congress voting on the President, in which case Trump would also have won, because the Republicans control the House of Representatives.

This goes some way to explaining how your President can 'shut down' government when the budget isn't to his satisfaction. That seems to me to be a recipe for instability. The thought of our Prime Minister 'shutting down' our civil service here is inconceivable.

Indeed, well, the "shut down" of the US government is moreso a matter of public relations and not so much actual fact. Very little stops during a government shut down. The military still goes. Social security, medicaid, medicare, and all the rest don't stop. Anytime there has been a "shut down" -- nobody I know has ever noticed. That is something I find interesting as well.

Also, the separation of the enforcement arm of the government and the legislative arm is, I think, in principle a good one. The way the whole system got bolloxed, in my view, is when the legislature/Congress started "delegating" its authority to executive departments. That is, you get the IRS, right, it's an executive department, but the IRS Code enacted by the legislature/Congress is actually relatively short and manageable a piece of legislation, as compared to the IRS "regulations" which amount to thousands of pages of Byzantine rules and requirements. The legislature delegated huge swaths of authority for the executive department to just make the needful rules. Thus, they "delegated" their legislative responsibility over to the law enforcement arm of the government.

That' "fourth branch" of our government now is probably the biggest and most powerful - it's virtually impossible to overturn regulations and there is nobody to "petition" for redress of grievances. The President is elected, but the people that run the executive departments wind up being career bureaucrats whose jobs and responsibilities extend from administration to administration and thus the way they do things depends very little on who is in the White House or which party is in control.