Pennsylvania should not determine the outcome of the election
Comment box
- Scope: venting
- Tone: sad, irritated, upset
- Opinion: yes
- Sarcasm/humor: none
I currently reside in Pennsylvania. The election season has been vitriolic, hateful and stressful. Even in church they are angry. They are going to fizzle out they are so mad. Even the ones who are kind are interminably irritable. I may sometimes be a partisan, utilitarian to the core, but I do not talk about politics in God's house. I will speak on justice and righteousness, but not in such terms as are popular. I would rather take that one moment in the week to see my neighbors for who they are and not the tribe they belong to. Somehow that is gone. Service on Sunday was not pleasant. You could feel the tension even as people sat listening. Even the children could feel it.
There is an election sign, or several, on every block. Every building zoned for electric screens has rotating ads (for both candidates) on it. It's all that is spoken about. One cannot escape it. It swallows you whole, spits you out again having transformed you for the worse. Have you voted? Did you hear what he said? Oh, keep quiet, that couple at the next table looks like they voted for the wrong one. Did you hear the vice president is coming to town? Horrible traffic, oh just so terrible. All the out-of-towners, coming in, you know who they support. Despicable. Do you have an election day plan? I voted early this year. That's nice. There was a sign in the next yard over. I just wanted to run it over with my car. Don't look at that man, sweetie, he is wearing boots only the wrong people would wear. The neighborhood watch got a report today. Vandalism, keys. Looking to do some election volunteering. Ballots are on fire. Did you hear? Have to go into that neighborhood, and make sure they don't vote for the wrong person. It would be so bad for them. Oh, they don't understand. Honey, bring your pepper spray, you're not safe there. You'll be shot, knifed. It's the crime, you know who they voted for. Do you know where your polling place is? I voted by mail this year. Did you hear what she said? Well, she didn't say it, but he said she said it. Let's get out of here, sweetheart, you know they voted for the wrong one, just look at the cars they drive, they don't care. Real Americans vote for the right one. All these people voting for the wrong one, so poor, so uneducated. I hate the rich. Let's get out of this bar. Go home. Back where it's safe. We can watch partisan election predictions and not be disturbed.
Nothing else has made me want to leave this state more than its unyielding power in the election. It is not democratic for six or seven states to effectively determine the winner of an election. And it is not a good experience as a resident to be given that much attention. It turns you against each other. It turns your civic and neighborly lifestyle into a caricature. It is worse that it is so all-or-nothing. The stakes are so high. Our 19 electoral votes are worth more than gold, because they only come in a package.
The Lord says
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
It is bad for many reasons. But it is only this bad because of the way our electoral system is set up pits us against each other. It does not have to be this way.
Here are my suggestions. If you are a Senator, please tell your colleagues that scroll_lock has issued a decree and make it happen. Perfection is the domain of nerds, I am simply concerned about minimizing the dominance of the two-party system and improving basic human decency.
- State Constitutional amendments mandating some variety of ranked-choice voting. I'm sure there is some mathematically optimal method. I don't care a whole lot which, as long as it is not first-past-the-post. I am less interested in the most "virtuous" system and rather the most useful one in effectively increasing the number of political parties present in an elected body.
- Federal Constitutional amendment forbidding the first-past-the-post method in elections for any federal or state office. (The states can decide how to implement the alternative. I'm not convinced there is any single best option.)
- Adoption of the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact.
- When it is inevitably ruled unconstitutional: a national Constitutional amendment requiring the allocation of electoral votes in a given state proportionally to the votes of the electorate, rather than a "winner-take-all" system.
- OR, maybe this is better done at the state level. Not important to me. The legal nerds can battle out the specifics.
- Federal Constitutional amendment not only forbidding faithless electors but invalidating the votes of any faithless elector. In other words, that "real" vote for the president in December should become a formality only.
- May as well get rid of this silly meeting while we're at it.
- Federal Constitutional amendment separating the office of president into two equal offices within the executive branch, to be elected in a staggered configuration following the same system of presidential terms we currently have, just offset:
- President 1: head of state
- President 2: head of government
- Federal Constitutional amendment forbidding so-called "independent expenditure-only committees" from collecting annually more than an amount to be designated by Congress for political purposes, from any particular entity.
- Federal law forbidding the spending of campaign funds on public political advertising more than 3 months ahead of the election.
- Federal law forbidding the spending of PAC or equivalent funds on political advertising in support of a particular candidate more than 1 month ahead of the election.
And there we go. Not going to solve every problem, but that is the worst part done with.
Godforsaken land. I am buying extra food tomorrow. Let's hope it is over and done with by the end of the week.
Hey scroll_lock,
This is compellingly written. You have a way with words.
It’s clear you’re hurting, and something that’s helped me when I’m in a similar state has been kindness from others, so I want to extend that to you directly.
You are a valuable member here. Whenever I see a comment from you, I know it’s going to be thoughtful and knowledgeable. Your comment box is one of the most interesting innovations I’ve seen in online communication, demonstrating an awareness and a metacognition regarding your own thinking that I believe is quite rare, especially online. We’d be a much better internet at large if more people emulated your reflective and earnest spirit.
You are in a tough time and a tough place. One of your gifts is your ability to do systems-level thinking. You’re always analyzing situations and extrapolating them out into their inputs and parameters and mechanisms — not just looking at what the machine is doing, but always trying to figure out how the machine is operating.
You don’t stop there though. I’ve read so many messages from you where, instead of just giving a simple critique, you advance actual solutions — feasible action steps. You’re not a complainer; you’re a solver. Many of us are content to just identify problems and harp on those. The internet at large loves nothing more than takedowns, after all, but you always go past that easy out and take the hard way.
You’re always trying to move things forward. I find that incredibly admirable.
I think you might be having a hard time right now because you’re witnessing the conflict between the systems that are in place and the values you hold. From the outside looking in, it seems to me like values are your bedrock. You feel them strongly, and they’re the driving force behind your pursuit of solutions. When the system is mutable, then your values can be effected, albeit incrementally. The values and the system point in roughly the same direction; they move roughly the same way.
You can hear the faintest of harmonies if you listen closely.
But when the system is immutable, or outright dysfunctional, as is the current case with electoral politics in the US, then there’s a gridlock. Your values push one way, but they meet the immovable wall of a system pushing back the other direction. There is no movement.
There is no harmony.
It can produce a feeling of frustration. A hopelessness — how can I ever move something so heavy? A smallness — how can tiny little me ever move something so big?
This is what I felt in the beginning of your writing. That weight. Those opposing forces.
I think that’s what makes the end of your message so powerful.
Even when you’re feeling down, beleaguered, and frustrated, you still turned to solutions. That quintessential aspect of your character that so many of us are familiar with and have come to love is on display here, even in a dark moment for you. You might not see this, but what you’re projecting is a radical hope. The fire in you might feel like it’s out right now, but there are still embers inside of you glowing. That’s your indomitable spirit. That’s your incredible belief that no matter how bad things are, it’s still worth considering that they could be better.
I think that is simply incredible. I admire you for it, and I can say I’m probably not alone in that here.
Thank you for being here. Thank you for putting so much time and effort into your comments here.
And thank you for being an example of radical hope for us. We need examples of that more than ever right now. You are a shining bright light in a dark, distressing place.
Comment box
Scope: personal response, admiration
Tone: supportive
Opinion: nope — straight facts all the way
Sarcasm/humor: none (except for that last line) (and now this one)
Love: of course! — nothing but love for you scroll_lock ❤️
Comment box
Thank you. That is one of the kindest things I have ever been told.
I will listen for more harmonies. I believe they're there.
It's really bothersome that the national election centers on pandering to swing states. The promise to not tax tips was unprincipled and served only to please Nevadans, but that policy makes everyone a little worse off in the long run. The continued embargo on Cuba serves only to please the Cuban-American bloc in Florida.
Here in California, I see that we have the opposite problem of Pennsylvania's: no one really bothers to come out here to fight for our votes (except to beg money from Bay Area elites). Our votes are taken for granted.
It's all quite crazy, and I think it wears on everyone's spirits to pretend that, yes, this is not crazy.
Moving from "winner-takes-all" system to either popular vote (unlikely) or proportional allocation (likelier) would have the most bang for the buck for national elections. It would finally remove swing states of their absurd power / relieve their residents from that burden.
That's just game theory. No matter what system, it would be gamed. And the most advantageous and efficient methods of achieving victory would be pursued.
There will always be swing votes. Whatever form, whatever issue. There's always a place where the lever's set, that serves as a fulcrum.
What if we did go with Popular Vote? You'd still see targeted campaigning, irrespective of which parties remained, what they stood for, and whatever they called themselves.
A touch under 155 million votes were cast in the 2020 US national elections. Half of that is 77.5 million. The top nine metro areas in the US total more than that halfway mark (roughly 82 million). Two are in Texas (Dallas and Houston). NY/NJ is tops by far, LA, Chicago, then you skip down to Atlanta, DC, Philly, and Miami.
NY and LA alone outnumber the next three combined; Chicago along with Dallas and Houston, incidentally. People who live in NY and LA would absolutely agree their opinion should matter a lot on the national stage. Even if it excludes other views, so what? Majority rules.
Of course you could reasonably argue that not everyone votes. Obviously they don't, and yes it's a problem, but one for another discussion. So if you keep adding up, you get down to about number 33 on the list to find enough metro areas to total up past the ~155 voters. Those thirty-three metro areas have as much population as voted in 2020. If roughly half of those citizens are voters you're probably pretty much targeting those areas because they're easier to reach and comprise most of who you'd need to win.
Many of those places are already the places being complained about as swing states. My fast and dirty calculator session got down to Columbus and Cleveland. So Ohio would still be swing. Pittsburgh and Philly are still in that top 33, so Pennsylvania is still swing. Tampa and Miami are there, so Florida would still be swing.
Lots of Center Right Democrats on social media want Popular Vote. Why? They perceive it as advantageous. That's their sole reason. They think "we'd win more often, we should do it." The Right, on the other hand, perceive it as disadvantageous. Who's right? They both are.
Answer me this. If you (the royal you, like the royal we) were facing a change that disadvantaged you ... can you honestly say you'd agree to the change? If you do, honestly, you're the exception. People in the modern era do not go gently into that good night. They go into opposition and fight to have relevance, if not victory. Usually victory, but at least relevance.
Remember, you have a lot of places that aren't in that top 33 metro list. Or even in the top 50. Something like 20% of the US population doesn't live in a metro area. How are they going to react? Will they just be like "golly, those them there politician bastards sure are smart, spending all their focus on them places where all them fancy city folk live. It's right we don't count none."
(Because of course anyone who doesn't live in a big city is a dumb hick. Just ask a big city person, they'll tell you so.)
Or, would that ~20% be annoyed they don't count anymore? Might they polarize? Think they're more, or less likely to polarize if it becomes crystal clear they officially don't count? If they weren't polarized before, they probably are after. And they have access to social media, even if their vote doesn't count when the rules change to guarantee it.
One of the things social media's done is modify how the national conversation works. It used to only truly matter what a couple of cities thought, because everyone funneled through traditional media. So when the Times in New York or LA spoke, that mattered. When the LA or NY TV stations broadcast, that mattered. The heartland, the "fly over states" they were basically only hearing whatever was already coming out of NY or LA anyway, and the line of communication didn't go back the other way.
Meaning any muttering from those small ignored communities didn't matter. Because even if they did mutter and pout and stomp their feet, who heard? No one. Or, at least, no one who counted. Pissed off people in NY counted, pissed off people in the flyover states were something historians would later write about and that was the end of it. NY and LA news never said "tonight, outrage in the Midwest" because who cared? Not people in NY or LA that's for sure, so it never made the news.
And most news in the country was NY and LA news since they fed the local stations. Mono culture.
Now though, those angry voters who don't live in a Big City hop online and share their rage. They can find their people. Dynamic culture. Everyone's viewpoints, not a few curated ones.
That's one of the big things no one really understood would happen with social media. Everyone assumed the consensus would solidify, because that's what we always had; consensus. Just it was imposed by a few curated media sources. Everyone thought online consensus would be as easy and obvious as the curated consensus always was.
Now though, no matter how much of an outlier your view might be, whatever that view is, with more than 300 million people in the country there's probably at least a few thousand who'll agree with you.
A surprising number of "minority viewpoints" actually count their supporters in the millions, tens of millions sometimes. Sure that might not be enough to count at the ballot box, when ~80 or ~100 million wins a national election, but it is more than enough for those people pissed that they "don't count" when voting to rabble rabble rabble and stir the pot.
Because if they can't win, why shouldn't they try to change the game to one they might? Again, that's what people do. Game theory. They try to win. The modern era of electronic civilization as it applies to societal politics has seen game theory shred civility and any chance of consensus.
It's what trying to raise up Popular Vote is doing. Change the game to be more advantageous. It's just as wrong as hearing about polarization of a "minority" view point and thinking those people are both evil and irrelevant and should just stop because they don't count. Thinking that they're simply trying to change the game because they're sore losers. Of course they are. Same as Dems are pushing stuff like PV.
The problem isn't how we vote. It isn't even that not everyone votes (another thing you often see Center or Left people lamenting; that if only everyone was required to vote everything would be fine because of course it would).
Polarization is the problem. No one, on either side of the aisles and divides, knows how to give. Pick any "hot" issue and you almost immediately begin hearing people demand a national law that gives them the win. How many laws have overwhelming support nationwide? Even 60% support means 40% percent are disappointed.
Some are more than disappointed. They feel bullied. Ignored. They take to social media, rabble rabble rabble, and they find their people.
There's no golden bullet that fixes polarization. But we need to find a way to get folks to be not just a little more flexible, willing to accept less than total victory. But also a little more willing to live and let live. Which isn't a political issue, but a social one.
The really sad thing is a lot of people truly do seem to think they can just impose a viewpoint. Left and right both think this, and both talk about finding a way to do it.
Except you can't 'fix' social media by censoring it. That's censoring speech. If someone advocates for criminality, that's a crime that should be charged and dealt with. But if they're simply exercising their speech, just because you disagree doesn't mean you have the right to censor them.
Right or Left. It's evil and fascist either way you cut it, and you can't take 20 or 40 percent of the country and say "you don't count, but you'll be problematic for us if you hop on social media, so you can't talk either." That's fascist straight out of the definition.
And the funniest part of all this? Left (and Center, including Center-Right Dem) loves to ridicule a popular notion the Right embraces. That of "the good old days." Left usually calls it racist, misogynistic, and downright evil. Only an evil bigoted fucker would long for the good old days, when of course everything was evil and bigoted.
Yet looking for a way to ignore polarization, and simply change the political structure so some number of the country that's the ~80 or ~100 million needed to win a national election is all that will ever matter and we'll make certain those winning voters only reside in the right places ... that's a return to mono culture. The good old days. Exactly what we had before social media.
When only NY and LA's viewpoints counted and got any airtime, got communicated, got heard.
I bet those "irrelevant citizens" would take to social media and bitch about it. They'd polarize. They'd feel marginalized and discriminated against. I bet some of them wouldn't take it lying down, and would try to change the system so they had some relevance.
Same as you would if you were made irrelevant. You'd look to change the game to one you can win.
I feel like you're mix and matching unrelated ideas.
To start, while the popular vote favors democrats right now, that hasn't always been the case, and you don't have to go all that far back; Obama actually had a electoral college advantage against Romney and McCain (that is, he won more of the electoral college than he did of the popular vote). The current popular vote/EC skew is a phenomena of the Trump era.
Secondly, it's not just that the EC somewhat gives more preference to rural areas proportionally. If you look at the swing states, it's not like they're all that rural. Much of Pennsylvania's population are in the two areas of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Same with Georgia and Atlanta.
The part about the EC that really "invalidates" votes is that it splits the country into discrete areas, and makes those areas winner-take-all. It doesn't matter how you split it, as long as you do that, you will make most of the country's vote "not matter". It's not a matter of rural vs urban per se. Your vote is meaningless in Wyoming as well.
Would parties spend money only in LA and NY in a popular vote? Probably not? You still need people to convince. It doesn't really matter how many people are in Manhattan, the Trump campaign is going to be fighting an uphill battle. There's easier battles to win. But your vote as a Trump voter in Manhattan, in a theoretical popular vote, would still matter, unlike the current system.
Same in Texas, though I'm glad that's sort of finally changing since the state is becoming almost close enough to matter.
Republicans love to say the Electoral College is great when they win elections because of it, but they don't think about the fact that California has more people voting Republican than any state other than Texas (and Texas more Democrats than any state other than California). Also, there's the fact that if (when) Texas starts to vote blue, the GOP will never win another EC as long as it exists... I'm sure they'll complain then.
Grew up in Texas, live in Pennsylvania now. There were lots of problematic things that I experienced there growing up, but I hate to see the way things are now. I'd love to see Texas go blue, not just in national politics, but in state politics as well. Thanks for giving me something happy to think about.
Actually, Trump got more votes in California than in Texas in 2020. Still lost the state 2:1.
TIL - Texas voter turnout sucks I guess in comparison haha
I don't have the energy to unpack similar feelings. As a person of faith that feels very confused seeing how tribal behavior/politics has turned so many faith communities into such hateful places, I share a lot of these feelings. I don't live in a swing state and can only imagine how much more intense everything is there. Know your voice and discourse is appreciated here. I hope you find peace amidst the chaos over the next few days. <3
At least the election will be over soon, though not the consequences. No more ads, no more predictions. Analysis about why it turned out that way can keep on going, though, eventually turning into a history discussion.
Swing states are always the ones that are the most evenly divided, in a divided country. Funny how that works.
Federal reform is unlikely, but perhaps there are things that states could do themselves if they want out? I wonder what splitting votes like Maine and Nebraska would do?
Congress should repeal the Apportionment Act of 1929. Revert to a fixed ratio of constituents to representatives, like 50,000 : 1. States can send a delegation of their representatives to the capital to work on committees, etc, while the rest remain in the state and simply vote or help draft legislation from afar. This would mean about 6800 representatives and make gerrymandering more complex. It also means lobbying becomes significantly more difficult and expensive for corporations.
That’s interesting. What would two equal roles do and how does this achieve your goals?
Comment box
In parliamentary and semi-presidential republics, there are two executive leaders, usually a president and a prime minister, with varying levels of independent operation. In the US, the president is both the head of state and the head of government. I am not interested in particulars of nomenclature. However, I see value in a role distinction.
I have also mused that a slightly stronger head of state and a slightly weaker head of government would be a better arrangement than what I am aware of in most governments currently. For example in the UK, the head of state is the king, which is a ceremonial position and in my opinion mostly unnecessary. My idea was that legislation pertinent to domestic affairs would go to the head of government, and legislation pertinent to international affairs would go to the head of state; the head of state would also remain the commander of armed forces. They would operate independently, so you wouldn't need two signatures to sign a bill. Bills would just be on different "tracks." I believe France has something similar to this (at least in terms of the domestic/international split), but I am not proposing that exact system.
Some system would have to be devised to control the manner in which legislation is sorted, but that is a procedural matter. In the best case, there is a stronger separation of powers and less capacity for a foolish executive to completely destroy the government. In the worst case, a given piece of legislation mistakenly goes to the wrong executive, but if they are elected in the same way as each other this isn't really a problem. Some of the executive's checks on the legislature and judiciary (like appointing judges) could be split across the two executives, but I don't know exactly how.
The Romans had two consuls on purpose. I simply don't think it's prudent to vest this much executive authority in one person.
Some context on the Romans: in the Roman Republic, that was about electing the best military leaders while also making sure that generals could be replaced. It mostly worked for a few centuries, until they conquered too many people. More here:
(A side note: though it means something different now, the word fasces is where fascist comes from.)
Consuls were often far away from Rome commanding an army, and Rome often was fighting in more than one place at once, so it was useful to have two. As the empire got bigger, they needed more generals, so there were various fudges.
So this can be thought of as the rule of a military elite who elected popular generals with the support of soldier-citizens. We're fortunate in the US that, though we've sometimes elected popular generals, by long tradition, we have an apolitical military and a civilian government. In other countries, military coups still happen.