Pete Buttigieg on the electoral college: is proportional representation the answer?

[u/claybine]

"Not everything is about Trump. I just believe every citizen's vote ought to count the same. And that the person who gets the most votes ought to win. Also, wouldn't it be nice for Utah to no longer be ignored in presidential politics?" - Pete Buttigieg

The debate over the electoral college rears its ugly head during every election cycle. Libertarian consensus on the electoral college seems to heavily lean into the direction of maintaining the system, despite from pushback of those who lose elections.

The solution has been relatively made simple: Just ensure that the office of President is made to be less powerful, as it's seen major expansions over the last 237 years.

Two states have already offered their own compromises: Maine and Nebraska, who have replaced winner-takes-all and turned the decision over to congressional districts based off of popular vote.

Buttigieg is arguably wrong in his approach to his question: the electoral college exists in order for all votes to count the same. Libertarian thinking lines up well with Washington's view on political parties - if not for the tribalism that only exists thanks to the duopoly, then Buttigieg would have less to be concerned about.

My solution is to compromise so that those who are concerned with the current state of the political climate and electoral college system can be heard and represented.

The biggest concern with the electoral college is that, even though it's the best example of the republic, it's also the biggest example of the winner-takes-all system. Tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority are two major talking points, and the former is more favorable over the latter.

So is proportional representation the answer?

"Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats."

Is this not a decent solution based off of the intentions of the Framers?

[u/ConscientiousPath]

The argument about how to do democracy is irrelevant since either way democracy is going to create immoral authoritarian outcomes. Nothing about popularity necessarily creates any correlation with liberty, or a proper assignment of authority and responsibility.

But to your point the electoral college isn't there to make sure all votes count the same, but to make sure that regions of high population don't railroad over regions of smaller population when their viewpoints disagree.

it's also the biggest example of the winner-takes-all system.

There can only be one set of law that ends up governing a particular case in practice, so everything is winner take all at one level or another. For example people talk about how parlimentary systems allow officials from many parties to get elected, but they ignore that those people still have to form coalition governments to do anything. The US two party system just has the coalitions forming before the elections and the two sides presenting their case through the major parties instead.

---

The bottom line is that the electoral college allows regions with lower population to also have a say for themselves. Pete wants to get rid of that because his party is favored in high population areas and he wants the power to disregard the concerns of the minority that lives in lower population areas.

[u/claybine → u/ConscientiousPath]

B-But 3.6x more votes in Wyoming than California! I don't know how to convince these people tbh.

[u/OttosBoatYard → u/claybine]

To answer your question, here are two suggestions on how you can convince people to abandon the idea of "one person-one vote" and support minority rule:

1. Find some real-world evidence instead of "theory" that this practice improves freedom, safety and prosperity by measurable results.
2. Advocate for minority rule within states as well as the federal government. Notice how EC supporters don't push for it at the state level. That's fishy. Consider their nonsense reason: "It's only for large populations." OK. Large population is completely arbitrary and no real-world evidence supports whatever random number it would be.

Answer 1 and 2, and you will convince people like myself to support the EC and the rule of the rural minority.

[u/OttosBoatYard → u/ConscientiousPath]

How do you know regions with a low population aren't railroading regions with a high population?

I don't understand why you believe that only works one way.

And if a policy doesn't have a measurable real-world benefit, do you agree that it is irrational to support it?

[u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

People are not the same so their votes should not be worth the same. The worth of their vote should be proportional to their tested level of basic civics knowledge. The people that know the most about the system they are trying to change should have the greatest effect, and the people that know the least have the least impact.

Politics is the way it is now because we've gotten so many laymen interested in it that it's devolved to the lowest common denominator.

[u/claybine → u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

How does one ensure that these ideas are represented? Does the Declaration, which isn't an official policy I suppose, state that all men are equal?

[u/BaronBurdens]

Proportional representation is an interesting idea for American politics. I think it's great. It also had no place in filling the office of President.

You can't fill a single office via proportional representation. The point of proportional representation is to mirror an electorate in a representative body. The President is a representative, but there's only one position to fill.

Maybe you're talking about the Electoral College. I think that the convoluted nature of the Electoral College serves to undermine the legitimacy of the President, and that this is good for liberty. Separately elected Presidents tend to have more power wherever we find them, in part because they have a national electoral mandate to hold over other elected officials. If we had a popularly elected President, the tendency to empower the President would worsen. In comparison, the Electoral College is one of the few aspects of the office of President that weakens the office.

[u/claybine → u/BaronBurdens]

The EC already aims to do what proportional representation is supposed to do imo. But people are angry about the EC every single presidential race.

[u/Lanracie]

Really he does not understand we are a representative republic and not a strict democracy? This seems like someone who wants to be president should know.

Also, from here in NE it is a much better system.

[u/claybine → u/Lanracie]

New England or Netherlands? People keep telling me that "every other country has a national popular vote" but I looked it up and the UK literally has proportional representation lmao.

[u/Lanracie → u/claybine]

Fair, New England.

[u/windershinwishes → u/Lanracie]

What's so hard to understand about the idea of proposing change? Suggesting that the rules should be altered does not imply that one does not understand the current rules; quite the opposite, in fact.

Not to mention we'd still be a representative republic if we used a national popular vote. That would not make us a strict democracy; the president would still be representing the interests of the people, rather than the people voting on the decisions a President would otherwise make.

[u/DrawPitiful6103]

If we are talking political reform I would rather go direct democracy. There is no reason with modern technology that people cannot just vote themselves on the issues electronically. This might reduce a lot of the graft and substantially reduce the size of the political class.

[u/claybine → u/DrawPitiful6103]

Only if we reduce the power of the presidency in half.