Today at Outside the Beltway Steven Taylor is outraged that minority rule prevails in the United States:
To reiterate: the notion that a system that, on a mass level, provides more power to the minority than to the majority in terms of basic decision rules (like selecting a president) is inherently flawed. It is not democratic. And even if one tries to engage in some convoluted argument that tries to establish that the EC does some amazing magical representation that is superior to a popular vote, all one is doing is rationalizing a failed institution that never even worked as designed.
The situation of a candidate who failed to garner a majority of the popular vote become president is not a new one. Bill Clinton did not receive a majority of the popular vote either time he ran for president and John Kennedy got a minority of the popular vote in 1960. They did, however, win pluralities of the popular vote. Pluralities are still minorities. I can mount the same arguments against plurality rule that Dr. Taylor does against minority rule.
I think our system is facing a crisis of legitimacy which has its roots not in the electoral college but in the failure of elected leaders to implement policies that a majority of Americans support, as I suggested earlier today. Rather than perseverate on the cruel injustice of the electoral college, I’d like to take a different tack. What policies do a majority of Americans support? Let’s consider a number of hot button issues.
Immigration
Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe that immigration should be decreased or stay the same compared to just over half who think it should be increased or stay the same. Decrease has the most support. I believe that the extremely high rate of illegal immigration sours Americans on immigration more generally.
A narrow majority of Americans believe that some method of regularizing the status of illegal immigrants brought here as children should be implemented.
Health Care
A majority of Americans believe that health care insurance is the government’s responsibility. That is a recent change. A bare majority supports the Affordable Care Act. A majority of Americans are worried about paying ordinary health care expenses and a supermajority are worried about paying the bills for a serious illness or accident. A majority think that health care is not affordable.
A majority of Americans want a system based on private insurance.
I have no idea how to resolve the contradictions in those positions.
Abortion
A majority of Americans think that abortion should only be legal under certain circumstances—essentially the status quo. That’s a far higher number than either those who think that abortion should be legal under all circumstances or illegal under all circumstances.
The majority position is the status quo.
Afghanistan
I found it hard to find good polling on this subject but the impression I am left with by what I have found is that a majority of Americans think we should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.
Syria
Just about half of Americans supported our military actions in Syria.
LGBT Rights
A narrow majority of Americans think we need new laws to ensure the rights of LGBT Americans.
Race Relations
Majorities of Americans think that blacks and whites have equal opportunities for jobs and housing.
Taxes
A majority of Americans think that “the rich” pay too little in taxes.
As should be obvious from the discrepancy in so many areas between what Americans think and what American political leadership is doing, is it any wonder we have a crisis of political legitimacy in the United States?
Are there any other issues I should address here?
As one final note, if you are strongly committed to democracy, why should we not try direct democracy? If you do not think we should try direct democracy, how do you reconcile that with your support for democracy?
I do not support direct democracy, and neither did the Founding Fathers nor the Constitution. The explicitly anti-democratic elements in the Constitution include (1) the Electoral College; (2) the Senate, especially in its original form; (3) the Bill of Rights; and (4) he Supreme Court, especially after Marshall.
All of these elements were insisted on by the small States in order to protect them from domination by the large States. The small States actually gave away a great deal of power when the new Constitution was adopted. Under the Articles there was only a single House, and in it each State had one vote. The President was elected by that House, and there was hardly any federal government.
These four institutions also protect minority rights. There are no minority rights under direct democracy.
You might add the Second Amendment, which is aimed at the federal government, as the mechanism of enforcing both minority rights and stae rights, the Civil War not withstanding. Young people might experience another Civil War. Peter Turchin thinks so.
I apologize for two posts.
My daughter has lived in Germany for over 15 years. She is married to a Germany, and she has a private translation service that is quite successful.
She is very happy with the German health insurance system. This is a mixed system with a mandatory public component and available private insurance. The public section picks up about three-quarters of total medical spending in Germany, and private insurance pays the rest.
The distinguishing feature of the German system is that she can go to any doctor she wants when she she wants. Even specialists, which she has done. There is no referal system, as in the US. No gate keepers.
Germany spends about 12% of its GDP on medical care. This is not greatly different than we do, but it is lower. German honesty and efficiency at work.
On the down side, about 30% of her business income is taxed for the German equivalent of Social Security and Medicare. There is also the VAT and income taxes. I suspect about half or more of German GDP goes to taxes.
On the bright side they don’t have armies scattered across the world fighting unwinnable, endless, pointless wars. It took losing two world wars to teach that lesson.
A two-parted question that should be asked is ‘Do you support the Constitution of the United States in its present form or not and if not what amendments do you propose to change it’. The Constitution is the bedrock of the law of the land. To apply it selectively or attempt to go around it, like the current campaign against the electoral college, is a recipe for disaster. Do we really want a few big cities, vote fraudsters, and illegal immigrants running our lives? Because that’s what the baker’s two dozen are proposing.
I agree with @bob sykes first post, but as a contrarian, I believe that the majority is usually wrong.
The Germans are more orderly, more law-abiding, and more respectful of authority than we are. Germans obey laws. We disobey laws when we know we can get away with it. That is why Germany’s health care system cannot work in the U. S.
Seeing your post now after I commented over at OTB. I think you make some good arguments, especially the applicability of what the American people actually want vs the choice they have come election time.
Your point—that a majority of those who vote is not a majority—is a good one, too.
” Pluralities are still minorities. I can mount the same arguments against plurality rule that Dr. Taylor does against minority rule.”
In the case of Clinton and Kennedy, they won more votes than any of their opponents. I think that is the real issue, not so much the way you like to turn it into the plurality, minority argument. If the people with the most votes keep losing that will further weaken our country. Poor governance is a problem, but if people see that you can keep winning elections even though you persuade fewer voters it will be difficult to have the legitimacy to fix things.
“To apply it selectively or attempt to go around it, like the current campaign against the electoral college”
The Constitution has built within it the ability to change the Constitution, which we have done many times. There is nothing un-Constitutional about proposing changes to the electoral college, or any other part of the Constitution.
“especially the applicability of what the American people actually want vs the choice they have come election time.”
The American people often want contradictory things. Polling will also show changes over brief periods of time which may just be fads or emotional responses to current events. While I think it is important tot have a general idea of what people want, I would contend that we also need true leadership. That means looking beyond the polls. (Conservatives have brilliantly exploited these contradictions. People want more services from government and they also want less taxes. The GOP gives them both. The Democrats increase taxes and provide more services. That isn’t nearly as popular.)
Steve
You guys = conservatives, if that was not clear.
Steve
At least Dr Taylor comes by his silliness legitimately. He’s been banging that drum for quite awhile. The others seem to have developed an interest in about, oh, November 2016.
Take comfort, only about 5-6 of the necessary number of states would find this acceptable, the rest not being content to render themselves irrelevant in governance. Maybe Dr Taylor could redirect his considerable talents and noble intent to homelessness, addiction and feces decorated streets in the states with enlightened cities.
Top ten states with drug overdose deaths. (There is a reason conservatives shy away from numbers and rely upon feelings.)
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/overdose/top-10-us-states
Steve
They won by minorities of votes cast and, as Andy has pointed out, even smaller minorities of total eligible voters. Getting a larger minority of votes is utterly irrelevant if your yardstick is majority rule. Perhaps we should make voting mandatory as New Zealand does.
Claiming that a larger minority has as much legitimacy as a majority is sophistry. In a rules-based system what conveys legitimacy is public confidence that the rules are fair. That’s what our problem is not minority rule. But note that they only complain about the unfairness of the rules when their side loses.
I’m not a conservative or a Republican. I’m a Democrat and I voted for neither George W. Bush nor Donald Trump but I also think they played by the rules and won fair and square. IMO the bitter partisan complaints are undermining our system not alleged minority rule.
“The American people often want contradictory things.”
That’s true, but it wasn’t my point. It’s more about the fact that the two parties do a poor job nominating candidates who can fairly represent in the interests of Americans.
And the GoP learned this the hard way. After two decades of preferencing elite interests over others, the chickens came home to roost with Trump.
“There is a reason conservatives shy away from numbers and rely upon feelings.”
That’s a pretty bad generalization honestly. There are plenty of liberals who get triggered by any perceived slight and ignore numbers when convenient.
It’s not a coincidence. The party leadership of both parties are pursuing their own personal interests to the exclusion of everything else.
“Getting a larger minority of votes is utterly irrelevant if your yardstick is majority rule.”
It is not and I cannot believe you are being so obtuse over this issue. The point is that in elections in a democracy, the most votes usually wins the election. A majority of eligible voters or a majority of those who did vote are different topics of discussion, though related. The point is that the people getting the MOST votes are not winning. To the best of my knowledge this is pretty unusual in a democracy. It is not unusual for someone who had a plurality of votes, but not a majority, to rule.
“That’s a pretty bad generalization honestly.”
I might agree, and try to avoid those kinds of generalizations, but over the years on the internet I have not been able to find data driven conservatives. If you know of any please give me their names and/or websites. Thanks.
Steve
Steven Taylor wants to change the constitution because Trump was elected. And more, he fears it will happen again. Not a good enough reason to do it.
“The point is that in elections in a democracy, the most votes usually wins the election. A majority of eligible voters or a majority of those who did vote are different topics of discussion, though related.”
Except that is not true for the EC. And the context of Dave’s post is Steven’s OTB post which misuses the terms we are discussing.
“The point is that the people getting the MOST votes are not winning.”
And I agree it’s a problem in terms of legitimacy. But Steven goes much further than that.
“I might agree, and try to avoid those kinds of generalizations, but over the years on the internet I have not been able to find data driven conservatives. If you know of any please give me their names and/or websites. Thanks.”
I gave up trying to track and rack-and-stack people’s ideologies for the most part. And honestly, I don’t even know what “conservative” means anymore.
Taylor’s just another unreconstructed Southerner hating on Lincoln. Lt it go man.
Can you provide examples of that other than in the U. S.? Somewhere that doesn’t have a parliamentary system. IIRC most other systems provide for run-offs.
PD:
🙂
To pick up on Dave’s previous post on genetic fallacies, the problem with Taylor’s line that I assume hasn’t changed over the years is the assumptions of a static universe. And of course, the role of political parties. My understanding is that their purpose is to create voting blocks capable of governing or creating policies. They are not formal parts of any system (or at least in the U.S.), but are formed in response to the demands of the political system of sufficient complexity or size.
A political party that cannot form a coalition that can govern is failing. I don’t think that is true of the Democratic party, but there do appear to be a lot of Democrats offering excuses. And probably underneath it all, the democratization of the nomination processes makes this difficult for everyone. Too much democracy.
Part of assuming a static universe is assuming that everyone is one thing or another, they are reduced to Republican or Democratic and are unpersuadable. The other part is to look back at previous elections and assume the voter turnout for that election was fixed by the god of electioneering.
Independents outnumber either Democrats or Republicans and they are nearing a majority. Having a choice between a strongly partisan Democrat or a strongly partisan Republican is the graver minority rule.
“Can you provide examples of that other than in the U. S.? Somewhere that doesn’t have a parliamentary system. IIRC most other systems provide for run-offs.”
Seems like you’ve limited potential examples to a class of one. I think first-past-the-post systems tend to force a majority outcome over other values. And even when embedded in parliamentary systems that have multi-party potentials, quite a number of third-party votes are strategic votes intended to favor one of the two major parties are or votes that wouldn’t “count” in any event because they are cast in an electoral district with a clear majority for one of those parties.
To put it another way, Lincoln won the Presidency with less than 40% of the vote, and would have won if all of the votes for other candidates were united. I think this state of affairs is common in parliamentary systems w/ first-past-the-post voting. Other systems are more open to minority governments to begin with.
First past the post voting systems are not uncommon. List follows. What I cannot find is a second past the post system. If you could provide a list of those that would be helpful. (Israel, Canada, India, and I think UK are on the list.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_country
Steve
You still haven’t answered the question. Israel, Canada, India, the UK are all parliamentary systems.
That’s the point. Our system is different from that of other countries in ways other than the electoral college or, said another way, eliminating the electoral college is not enough to ensure a just system. It would merely be unjust in a different way. We’d need a parliamentary system with proportional representation as well. I would favor that.
The United States is not a direct democracy. Never has been. However it does have a Constitution which sets forth how elections are determined with an eye towards balancing the interests of large and small states and their citizenry. I, for one, don’t want presidential candidates pandering only to the citizens of CA, NY, TX, FL, PA, OH and MI.
Dave – I’d be careful of polls like that. There is a cool factor to claiming to be an independent that most assuredly biases the result.
Don’t worry, Guarneri. When California and New York lose a dozen or so electors, the media won’t be perseverating on it any more.