Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

[Brian Peacock]

They don't call it 'representative democracy' for nothing you know.

[pErvinalia]

Coincidence? 42 times out of 42 federal elections? Or could it be because the system does not allow that the Prime Minister could come from the party or coalition other than the one that got the majority of the popular vote?

If you win more seats in Parliament than the competition, then you do tally more popular votes for that party's candidates for MP.

Actually, that's not the case (necessarily). Any more direct representative system will have the possibility of the winning party getting less votes than the runner up. However, in the case of Australia with compulsory preferential voting, the chances of that are greatly reduced.

[Hermit]

Okay, here's my analysis:
Candidate A gets x number of votes. Candidate B gets fewer votes but wins.
Conclusion: Man, that's fucked up. I mean really, really, royally fucked up.

Only if the system is based on national majority vote to begin with.

If, for example, it's based on a vote of the legislature, irrespective of popular vote, then you have a system where the vote of the people is not even part of the equation. I.e., it seems that based on your view, we could make it "fair" by eliminating the popular vote count completely, and just letting the House of Representatives choose based on who has the most seats. Would that be fucked up, too?

That is unadulterated rubbish. In Australia the Prime Minister is not chosen by popular vote. Members of the majority in the House of Representatives select him or her. Now, why do you think that since the the choice became to either have a Labor government or one formed by the conservative coalition in 1910 the Australian Prime Minister was nevertheless always from the same party or coalition that got the majority of the popular vote?

Well, you don't know that they got the majority of the popular vote. You know that in each district the winning MP candidate got the majority of the popular vote, or plurality if there were multiple candidates. However, that's like saying the Republicans should choose the President because they won the majority of seats in the House of Representatives. One can be very much in favor of a person from the Party X for their MP, while not being all that keen on the leader of the party who becomes PM. You get no chance to vote for that PM, though. You have to take him, if your preferred candidate is in that person's party.

Actually, we do know that in each district the winning MP candidate got the majority of the popular vote. The final tally of every seat in every Australian election is on public record. Also, familiarise yourself with the instant-runoff voting system, better known in Australia as preferential voting, and used since 1919.

Coincidence? 42 times out of 42 federal elections? Or could it be because the system does not allow that the Prime Minister could come from the party or coalition other than the one that got the majority of the popular vote?

If you win more seats in Parliament than the competition, then you do tally more popular votes for that party's candidates for MP. However, those aren't votes for PM. The PM is chosen by the Parliament. Of course the party that wins a majority of seats will pick a PM from their ranks.

Yes, we know that already. It is also the case that the party that wins the majority of seats does so only because it has won the majority of the popular vote. So the Prime Minister never comes from a party that has not won the majority of the popular vote. Unlike in the US, it simply cannot happen that a head of government is chosen from a party that has attracted 46.1% of the popular vote when the other party got 48.2% of it. You're torturing an untenable point.

So, you see it is fallacious to say that letting the House of Representatives choose based on who has the most seats means eliminating the popular vote count completely, and I think you actually know that. In Australia at least, the popular majority vote has determined which party the head of government comes from. Full marks for trying, but your debating trick fails completely. The vote of the legislature is not irrespective of popular vote. It is contingent on it.

It eliminates the popular vote for the President. It's not fallacious.

Let's just stick to what you actually wrote, shall we?

it seems that based on your view, we could make it "fair" by eliminating the popular vote count completely, and just letting the House of Representatives choose based on who has the most seats.

"just letting the House of Representatives choose based on who has the most seats" does not mean "eliminating the popular vote count completely" because it is the popular vote that determines who has the most seats in the first place. It is the popular vote, and more specifically the majority it produces, that ultimately determines which party the Prime Minister is selected from. Always.

[Brian Peacock]

The voting system of the European Song Contest is more democratic than voting in the US general election (or the UK general election for that matter).

I think I should be able to sell my vote to the highest bidder. At least that way I get something out of it.

[Svartalf]

I only wish someone would buy my vote...

[Brian Peacock]

250g of goats cheese?

[laklak]

Baguette, bottle of Burgundy, and a bowl of snails?

[Svartalf]

man, it will take a bit more than that, if they intend me to stay bought

[laklak]

I'll vote for whoever gives me a pig foot and a bottle of beer.

[Sean Hayden]

Dude, Donald Trump is the President of the US! :holyshit:

[JimC]

I blame Jesus...

[Sean Hayden]

Is there anyone capable of doing the absurdity justice in print? I'm desperate to read a great piece about it all. Is it really just too much for everyone?

[pErvinalia]

I think so. How could anyone explain it? Imagine trying to explain to aliens how this person was elected the leader of the world (or thereabouts). It can't be done. Not without large amounts of psychedelics.

[Forty Two]

Let's just stick to what you actually wrote, shall we?

it seems that based on your view, we could make it "fair" by eliminating the popular vote count completely, and just letting the House of Representatives choose based on who has the most seats.

"just letting the House of Representatives choose based on who has the most seats" does not mean "eliminating the popular vote count completely" because it is the popular vote that determines who has the most seats in the first place. It is the popular vote, and more specifically the majority it produces, that ultimately determines which party the Prime Minister is selected from. Always.

Indeed, and if it's done that way, the national popular vote is not determinative. Instead of states being the unit, congressional districts. I.e. each representative is elected by a majority in that district. That is not the same as the majority popular vote. Some representatives will be elected by only a slight majority (or even a plurality, where there are several candidates for the same seat). Some representatives will have won with, say 40% of the vote, because two other candidates split the remainder 30-30, for example. Some representatives will win by 90% to 10%. As you can see, it's not outlandish to see a party win more seats without winning the pure popular vote. The Repubs can get more seats in Congress without having the majority nationally vote Republican, and so can the Democrats, depending on how it shakes out.

The same is true in a Parliamentary system, where there are multiple candidates for a seat, or where some districts/ridings are heavily populated by voters to one party, while other districts/ridings are near half and half. The parliamentary system also can result in a party with only, say 35% of the seats in the Parliament getting to pick the prime minister from their ranks, because they join with one other party that has 16% of the seats. That can result a party candidate that would not have achieved a majority of a popular vote getting the PM seat.

Had we had this kind of system in 2016, the Republicans would have picked the President, and the likely scenario would have been that a guy like Jeb Bush would be President, maybe Ted Cruz. Or, if the Pres had to be drawn from the ranks of the Republicans, then it would likely have been President Paul Ryan, or Kevin McCarthy, none of which would likely have garnered a majority of the direct popular vote.

Yes, I agree, that the indirect choice of the President or PM by the House of Representatives or the Parliament does involve the indirect vote of the people for those representatives and parliament members. But, it does not equal the popular vote, and it does not mean that whoever is elected PM in that circumstance has the support of the majority of voters.

Another option that could be used under the American structure would be to allow the STATE legislatures to choose who the States opt to vote for President. That way, the people's vote is taken into account by their votes for their state legislators, and they would choose the President. Most state legislatures are Republican, just like most Congressmen are republican now. So, the result would be a Republican President again. Not Trump, but it would be an establishment republican candidate - pro free trade, pro small government, limit funding for abortions, oppose gay marriage, all that.

Your complaint appears to be that the EC, while taking into account the popular will indirectly, does not guarantee that the majority will of the popular vote ,nationally, wins. Well, neither does the Parliamentary system, which as I pointed out, indirectly involves the popular will, but can result in a PM taking office who is from a party holding only a plurality and who would not otherwise win a popular election.

[Forty Two]

Dude, Donald Trump is the President of the US! :holyshit:

Isn't he better than the Republican alternatives? Would you prefer Ted Cruz? http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/comm ... d-ted-cruz