Politics in a banana republic

The FT has a good article about the political situation in Brazil, where the president has succeeded in convincing many voters that he’s not to blame for their relatively bad performance on Covid-19 (572 deaths per million, vs. 567 in the US.) This despite the fact that Bolsonaro consistently mocked the risks posed by Covid, and indeed tried to prevent any sort of effective measures to stem the outbreak.

In a poll by Datafolha published last month, 37 per cent of respondents gave the Bolsonaro administration a positive approval rating, up from 32 per cent in June and the highest since the former army captain took office in January last year. Almost 50 per cent of those surveyed said they did not blame the 65-year-old president — who has criticised social-distancing measures, forced out two health ministers and fallen sick with Covid-19 — for the death toll. The ratings suggest Mr Bolsonaro would be poised to make the run-off in the country’s two-round presidential elections. . . .

“He has been very effective in terms of use of direct channels with his supporters through Facebook Live. He has managed to create narratives and counter narratives that don’t appear in the mainstream media. He is in constant campaign mode, always emphasising his outsider credentials,” she said.

How can the President be an outsider? Gee, I’m glad I don’t live in a banana republic like Brazil.

After cutting a deal with a powerful political bloc known as the Centrão that would prevent any possibility of an impeachment vote against him, the president has avoided confrontation with the nation’s institutions.

I’m glad I don’t live in a country where corrupt presidents are above the law. But how does a conservative gain support in a country where most people are poor or working class? After all, conservatives oppose welfare.

Mr Bolsonaro’s economic team in April rolled out a programme that has distributed about $100 per month to millions of Brazil’s poorest — more than the normal income of many. Costing about $10bn per month, the programme is inflating Brazil’s debt but is paying political dividends.

Support for Mr Bolsonaro has soared among poorer citizens and in poorer regions such as the north-east — to 35 per cent this month — up from 22 per cent in December, according to a Datafolha survey. This is more than compensating for his dwindling support among wealthy Brazilians, who have tired of his acrimonious politics.

Who cares about “inflating debt”?

Call it handout conservatism. At least I don’t live in a country where a politician tries to buy an election with a big payroll tax cut two months before the election, without any Congressional approval, and without publicizing the fact that 100% of the tax cut must be paid back in early 2021 (after the president is safely re-elected.) Oh wait . . .

PS. Both Bolsonaro and Trump will be re-elected. In a banana republic, the demagogue will beat the normal politician almost every time.

PPS. In one respect Brazil is ahead of America. In Brazil, the president is the candidate who actually gets the most votes.


Tags:

 
 
 

46 Responses to “Politics in a banana republic”

  1. Gravatar of Skeptical Skeptical
    1. September 2020 at 10:24

    I wouldn’t be that sure about Trump being re-elected. Biden is still up 6 points on RCP average. Betting markets are getting weird, but it’s such an illiquid hamstrung market there’s only so much information you can glean from the odds.

    Although msgkings concern about unrest now looks prescient.

  2. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    1. September 2020 at 11:04

    Skeptical, Keep in mind that Biden needs to be up 5 points in the polls to win. Three points for the electoral college bias and 2 points due to shy Trump supporter poll bias.

  3. Gravatar of Elijah Elijah
    1. September 2020 at 11:23

    In my view the electoral college is still a very wise system–heartland states already feel under attack by coastal elites and eroding their say in governance further would only exacerbate this belief. What do you have against it? Is this view typical of most libertarians?

  4. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    1. September 2020 at 11:48

    Elijah, Every other country relies on the popular vote for President (not prime minsters). If we did as well, and someone were to propose an “Electoral College”, they’d be laughed at.

    States don’t vote, people vote. That’s how the President should be picked. The Senate is where states are represented.

    I grew up in Wisconsin and never felt any lack of political power due to that fact. A vote should count as one vote, regardless of where you live–Wisconsin, Texas or New York. For me, there’s no point in even showing up to vote, as my vote in California will make no difference.

    In the future, the purple states may be on the coasts, in which case the EC will favor the coastal states. Recall that California was blue as recently as 1988. So it’s unwise to base your views on the EC on whether it helps heartland states. Base your views on reasonable principles that would hold regardless of which states it helped at a given point in time.

  5. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    1. September 2020 at 11:55

    “In my view the electoral college is still a very wise system . . . ”

    Is ‘this’ a ‘wise system’?

    “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
    Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
    Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

  6. Gravatar of Cartesian Theatics Cartesian Theatics
    1. September 2020 at 13:41

    Off topic: Scott, do you have theory of what happened in 1971? I don’t see a post specifically on it. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Looks to me like it can’t be just suddenly decelerating growth. I thought this recent thread on the subject was interesting:
    https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1300621698585120769

  7. Gravatar of Randomize Randomize
    1. September 2020 at 14:10

    Also off topic, this was in the news today:

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/federal-reserve-we-got-it-wrong-on-postcrisis-rate-hikes-201428730.html

  8. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    1. September 2020 at 15:12

    @Skeptical:

    Indeed. I hope I’m wrong, but it’s 1968 and Nixon/Trump is gonna win again.

  9. Gravatar of P Burgos P Burgos
    1. September 2020 at 15:48

    Why be so confident of a Trump victory? Trump won last time because of a small number of people in three states, and the polls this year look really similar to the polls in 2016. That would suggest to me that the election is a tossup.

  10. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    1. September 2020 at 15:53

    Trump may win…or will Biden-Harris (aka Hillary 2020) lose?

    Is a globalist-BLM alliance appealing?

    First let’s Detroitify the industrial cities. Then Portland is the ideal.

  11. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    1. September 2020 at 16:33

    Add on:

    The Democrats (CNN-MSNBC-NY Times) say there are only “peaceful protests” going on, unless they are blaming Trump, in which case our cities are cauldrons of murder, plunder, fire and mayhem.

    The GOP is equally odious, but is less censorious, less PC, and occasion some GOP’ers accidentally blurt out the truth.

    A Hobson’s choice.

  12. Gravatar of BC BC
    1. September 2020 at 18:42

    “Every other country relies on the popular vote for President”. On the other hand, we have the longest running constitutional democracy in the world, even though we have a relatively young nation, so other countries’ democracies are less time tested than ours.

    “States don’t vote, people vote. That’s how the President should be picked.” That’s a circular argument. The Electoral College issue is precisely about the degree to which states ought to have a meaningful political identity in a federal system. No one would suggest that the UN Secretary General must be selected by global popular vote. If the states can have representation in the legislature through the Senate, then why shouldn’t states also have some representation in the Executive. After all both branches are supposed to be co-equal.

    “For me, there’s no point in even showing up to vote, as my vote in California will make no difference.” That would be true of a national popular vote as well. As Bryan Caplan likes to point out, voting is irrational as one’s vote is highly unlikely to affect the outcome of any election (except for very small ones).

    “In the future, the purple states may be on the coasts, in which case the EC will favor the coastal states.” Right, the EC favors neither coastal nor heartland states. It magnifies the influence of swing/purple states! Who do you want to have the most influence, the center or the fringes? This is actually the strongest argument for the EC, and also why activists seem to dislike it the most. I would much rather the President be determined by the whims of relatively apolitical voters in Michigan than by the enthusiasm and turnout of fringe voters in California or Alabama.

  13. Gravatar of Elijah Elijah
    1. September 2020 at 20:12

    Scott,

    I am not basing my opinion of the EC based on which group it currently happens to favor. I use this as an example of what I believe the founders were concerned about when they instituted the electoral college—warring factions that would seek to dominate each other through a tyranny of the majority.

    Thank you BC for your well reasoned points! I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  14. Gravatar of Cartesian Theatrics Cartesian Theatrics
    1. September 2020 at 22:34

    On the Banana Republic topic, my question is why isn’t Trump stopping or speaking powerfully to the critical race stuff playing out in the Federal government? Seems like it has been fomenting tramendously under his administration. It’s hard not to wonder if he’s purposely trying to create the conditions for a majority blow back, as happened in India (and to some extend China?). Scary, confusing times.

  15. Gravatar of derek derek
    2. September 2020 at 06:17

    @Cartesian, both Trump and the bad elements of BLM primarily want to stoke the controversy that powers them; both of these sides benefit from having an all-powerful bogeyman as their enemy. Tribalism is now so high that it is extremely difficult to get moderates to cross party lines, so the only fight that matters is defeating moderates within one’s own party. For the Dems, we thankfully have the chance to vote for the historically sane Biden; if there is a bad successor, we will hopefully have a sane Republican alternative in 2024, but my expectation/hope is that we will have two sane choices (a la Romney/Obama), with a president not fully committed to culture war allowing both sides to de-escalate.

  16. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    2. September 2020 at 07:06

    “Trump won last time because . . . ”
    This is why H.R.C. ‘lost’?
    “And it’s deadly. Doubtless, Crosscheck delivered Michigan to Trump who supposedly “won” the state by 10,700 votes. The Secretary of State’s office proudly told me that they were “very aggressive” in removing listed voters before the 2016 election. Kobach, who created the lists for his fellow GOP officials, tagged a whopping 417,147 in Michigan as potential double voters.”
    http://www.gregpalast.com/trump-picks-al-capone-vote-rigging-investigate-federal-voter-fraud/
    “In 2016, no fewer than 5,872,857 ballots were cast—and never counted.
    Does it matter? In Detroit, 75,355 ballots were never counted because of 87 broken scanning machines. And Trump supposedly won Michigan by 10,700 votes — really?
    And, no fewer than 1,982,071 legal voters were denied the right to vote. Told to get the hell out of the polling station. Can you guess their color?
    Add it up. That’s at least 7,854,928 legitimate votes and voters tossed out of the count.
    So God Bless America. By the way, these numbers are from the raw data supplied to me by the US Elections Assistance Commission.
    https://www.gregpalast.com/how-trump-stole-2020-2/

    “The ‘smoking gun’ proving North Carolina Republicans tried to disenfranchise black voters”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/?fbclid=IwAR2gjBAUBf5v1LmWkJuIBpvPOqNg5pZmjYEjnBt03rgWyn0UvBpNovtQxUE

  17. Gravatar of Effem Effem
    2. September 2020 at 07:13

    The amount of “perceived wealth” being created in the run-up to this election is mind-blowingly staggering. The Fed is handing Trump a second term.

  18. Gravatar of Effem Effem
    2. September 2020 at 07:17

    Also, isn’t there an easy answer for a presidential attempt to add massive amounts of stimulus prior to an election? i recall hearing lots about a “monetary offset” phenomenon…is it broken? never existed?

  19. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    2. September 2020 at 07:27

    It’s perfectly fine to not like the electoral college. I still think Madison was correct——Yes, the Senate does represent the states disproportionate to population——but, electoral college does not. States do elect presidents by design, proportional to population. Plus, states can design their electoral allocation any way they want. So if popular vote were so popular, they would do so, as a few states have. I can assure you, California Democrats at least, likes electoral college just the way it is. Why that is any more laughable than a system which would have Pelosi or Gingrich as President is beyond me. Somehow, it has worked fine for 230 years, but now it doesn’t because………? Not sure. How many countries have lasted that long without major revolutions? Not many. England? Not really—they lost an empire. Off hand I cannot think of any other.

    It’s as if because Trump might be elected (or Bush in 2000) with less popular votes, that electoral college is now antiquated. I am more worried about neither party conceding regardless of outcome——not how we count votes. When Hillary blatantly calls for a very close to a treasonous act that’s getting pretty crazy. Obviously Trump might do the same.

    I don’t know how plausible it is to contest an election—-nor whether mail in ballots increase the likelihood of “uncertainty”. But the biggest danger is not Trump or Biden winning, but neither accepting they lost.

  20. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    2. September 2020 at 09:07

    @BC
    Nice defense of the electoral college and federalism.
    I believe that much of what Scott is bemoaning as our descent into being a Banana Republic has to do with the increasing centralization of our government since FDR. Scott rightly praises Switzerland’s saner politics today with his comment that he wants our president to matter as much to us as the president of Switzerland matters to the Swiss. I would venture that much of Switzerland’s sanity has to do with the federal system in Switzerland.
    I believe that if we returned more to our federal roots our Presidential elections would stop attracting so many demagogues and narcissists. The Green New Deal, the nanny state, wars of choice, federalization of law enforcement would all be less likely in a truly federal system.
    The electoral college by itself has obviously not mattered enough to prevent the centralization of power, but weakening federalism further by eliminating it seems another step in the wrong direction.

  21. Gravatar of Gene Frenkle Gene Frenkle
    2. September 2020 at 09:41

    Michael Rulle, if the EC is so great then why haven’t the states adopted something similar to elect their governors? The reality is the EC is dumb…but popular vote simply wasn’t an option due to the 3/5ths Clause. In 2020 the EC is indefensible and remember the most powerful state dominated the presidency early on so if the EC was designed to give smaller states more power then Madison saw his Rube Goldberg device fail in real time. The Constitution includes the Fugitive Slave Clause and 3/5ths Clause and it has been amended numerous times including one amendment that made alcohol illegal…so let’s not pretend everything in the Constitution is sacrosanct and the document is without flaws.

  22. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    2. September 2020 at 10:11

    In a banana republic, the demagogue will beat the normal politician almost every time.

    Scott,

    Here I fixed that for you:

    In a *country with pure popular vote system*, the demagogue will beat the normal politician almost every time.

    The US system is built like that because it tends to prevent demagogues; broad alliances have to be forged throughout the country. A popular vote only system makes it easier for a good demagogue. The only reason why you are suddenly against this system is because you don’t like its last result. Boohoo. This is so inconsistent, dishonest and hypocritical.

    Every other country relies on the popular vote for President.

    Many democracies, probably the majority, are parliamentary democracies. You do realize that, right? You know how they determine their leader, right? How can someone be so misinformed.

    @BC and Carl
    Yes it is too funny that Scott praises Switzerland at every opportunity. Obviously he knows nothing about the country, not to mention their federal system and their electoral system. “Popular vote” my ass.

    I am also in favor of a system that strengthens the popular vote. I think the federal system in the USA is very well thought out though, no need for change. The popular vote is important in the US, but it does not dominate everything to 100% in any possible case. This is an important tweak. 100% of any system is rarely good.

    The Swiss system is actually the really extreme system here and very undemocratic. The popular vote there has no great influence on the president or the government whatsoever.

    The actual government is determined by a system called “Zauberformel” and is as undemocratic as you can imagine. Scott obviously has no idea what he is talking about.

    “Zauberformel” Scott, look it up. One cannot make this stuff up. The “Zauberformel” system is so undemocratic and so absurd that if one were to invent it in a work of fiction, one would be laughed at because it is so extreme and so unreasonable.

    Don’t ever talk about Switzerland again, Scott, you’ll just make a buffoon out of yourself over and over again.

  23. Gravatar of Gene Frenkle Gene Frenkle
    2. September 2020 at 10:21

    With respect to the EC—in Texas the suburbs of Dallas and Houston dominated something more important than electing governor—enrollment at UT-Austin. So under W Bush in response to affirmative action being declared unconstitutional Texas went to straight class rank in order to get into UT-Austin. But after a few years the rural representatives discovered it helped their constituents just as much as the urban constituents so they started supporting it and now the rule can’t be repealed even though the state flagship university isn’t really getting the best students in the state it is getting the top high school students for each high school.

    So Texas could obviously choose to make rural votes worth more than suburban votes for governor but they don’t…because it’s dumb and everyone has equal representation in the state legislature!! That’s right—Texas redraws senate lines because that makes more sense too!

  24. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    2. September 2020 at 10:30

    Carterian, Probably bad data.

    Burgos, I’m not confident, it’s just my prediction.

    Elijah, You said:

    “a tyranny of the majority.”

    I’m far more worried about a tyranny of the minority.

    Effem, There’s a huge difference between recent moves in disposable income and recent moves in national income. Monetary policy impacts national income, not the ratio of the two.

    Michael, You said:

    “I can assure you, California Democrats at least, likes electoral college just the way it is.”

    No they don’t. It hurts California.

    Carl, I agree on federalism.

    Christian, As usual, you are exactly wrong.

  25. Gravatar of Effem Effem
    2. September 2020 at 11:28

    From a political sense, i’m not sure why you’re so focused on national income. It’s financial wealth that’s going to give Trump the election. It’s not sustainable to push the ratio of “wealth” to GDP ever-higher but it can work for a while…

  26. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    2. September 2020 at 11:38

    Scott–it hurts California to the extent it impacts other states’ outcomes. California democrats (now at least) get 100% of their votes for the President.

    @ Gene Frenkle—-Or why don’t states do that for streets when voting for Mayor? You may not like EC, and as I said—that’s okay–I just think Madison was smarter—-despite your 3/5ths argument. They could have done popular vote then—and if 3/5ths did not work they could have done 1/2 or whatever. To repeat, today–as in right now—states can allocate electoral votes by popular vote if they chose to—but they don’t. It only works for the “popular voteists”if everyone does it—to much game theory risk. but States were designed to have power independent of the Federal Government—and without EC–that power is decreased. Its not “dumb”–you just don’t like it.

    further—how parties would campaign would change–thats okay too. But those who want to change the current method are welcome to try and change the constitution. I bet they would not get 20 states. Assuming it go by the Senate–which it would not.

    Disliking it is different than changing it. Why is it so hard to change? Because the founders were “dumb”. But why don’t you organize a movement.

  27. Gravatar of Gene Frenkle Gene Frenkle
    2. September 2020 at 11:44

    Michael Rulle, the EC is clearly dumb today. The 3/5ths Clause necessitated something other than a popular vote so the EC wasn’t dumb in 1788. Anyone the defends the EC today is being intellectually dishonest because the only reason to perpetuate it is to give one party an advantage—so just be honest like the Republican Party after the Civil War and say you support the EC and Senate and 2 Dakotas because it gives your party an advantage in federal politics.

  28. Gravatar of joseph church joseph church
    2. September 2020 at 11:47

    The electoral college USED to be a wise system. But, it has been so perverted from the original and intended method that is has lost most of its effectiveness.

  29. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    2. September 2020 at 13:07

    @Gene Frenkle

    Anyone the defends the EC today is being intellectually dishonest because the only reason to perpetuate it is to give one party an advantage—so just be honest like the Republican Party after the Civil War and say you support the EC and Senate and 2 Dakotas because it gives your party an advantage in federal politics.

    I’m not a Republican. Now, instead of smearing people when you haven’t convinced them with your arguments, why don’t you try refining your argument, or revisiting your ideas, or simply accepting that sometimes decent come to different opinions in good faith.

  30. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    2. September 2020 at 14:01

    Scott,

    The problem in the US is not the EC. It’s the winner-takes-it-all system on a federal basis. A proportional representation system would make more sense, so that no vote is completely worthless. This is poorly organized in the US, but the EC does not have much to do with this flaw. You can have a EC with or without winner takes it all.

    Without “winner takes it all” one might also be able to abolish the EC, but winner takes it all, combined with no EC, is just killer. Most candidates would focus on the most populous states even more.

    The relative vulnerability of the US to demagogues is due to its presidential system, a very common form of government on the American continent. This is probably one reason why there are so many “banana republics” on this continent today.

  31. Gravatar of Gene Frenkle Gene Frenkle
    2. September 2020 at 14:18

    Carl, use your brain—if we were starting from scratch today nobody would come up with the EC…it’s dumb.

  32. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    2. September 2020 at 14:26

    Yes, we should have a popular vote for President with a runoff, which is what kept Le Pen out of the Presidency in France, for example. That system guarantees that the President elected has a majority of votes.

  33. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    2. September 2020 at 15:32

    In this post Scott Sumner raises red flags about the national debt. Our children will have to pay off the debt.

    But in Japan, the national debt has ballooned in the last 40 years, while Japanese living standards have risen and the typical Japanese work about 200 hours a year less than they did in 1980. (This decrease in working hours is not f”orced leisure,” the unemployment rate in Japan is very low).

    Due to QE, the Bank of Japan owns about 1/2 of Japanese national debt, which is now about 230% of GDP.

    Japan has one of the most prosperous and stable societies on the planet, by far a more pleasant place to live than, say, the US.

    What is the meaning of “debt” if a central bank in simply buy it back without inflationary consequence?

    The reports yesterday are that the Eurozone is now in deflation.

    Perhaps there needs to be a Reformation inside the Temple of Orthodox Macroeconomic Theology.

  34. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    2. September 2020 at 18:33

    @Gene Frenkle
    But our country didn’t start today. It started 250 years ago and since that time it grew into one of the most free and prosperous countries in the history of mankind. I would say that’s pretty good evidence that the electoral college at least does not prevent success. I challenge you to identify a single country in history anywhere near America’s geographical expanse or population that has achieved anywhere near our freedom or prosperity. The closest entity, in my opinion, is Europe and that’s a group of independent states joined in a very loose federation.
    It’s possible that your common sense approach might actually not work out as well as the “dumb” system we have used for all these years.

  35. Gravatar of Gene Frenkle Gene Frenkle
    2. September 2020 at 19:12

    I believe W Bush and Trump are both bottom 5 presidents and I believe America has done some very dumb things since 2000 and our country has seriously underperformed the last two decades…and the EC has failed and the Senate has failed during that period.

    Furthermore, as an American I don’t have to defend deciding elections by popular vote and having equal representation and having everyone’s vote count the same. That said, Lincoln was on your side but keep in mind he had a wartime mentality and so he could rationalize taking advantage of undemocratic institutions like the EC and Senate because the war was between good and evil.

  36. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    2. September 2020 at 21:31

    @Gene Frenkle
    Fair enough. I suppose I can tolerate you questioning my motives if you’re also questioning Lincoln’s.

  37. Gravatar of Postkey Postkey
    3. September 2020 at 01:55

    “America has done some very dumb things since 2000 . . . ”

    And earlier?

    From 1945 the United States attempted to overthrow at least 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more. (Thanks to William Blum’s Rogue State, Common Courage Press, 2005).

  38. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    3. September 2020 at 02:14

    Scott, Gene,

    I am also not happy that Bush was elected at that time, but your phantasms only prove questionable static ex-post thinking without reference to reality. If we assume that there was a popular vote in 2000 and 2016 long before the elections, we would still not know how the elections would have turned out. You make assumptions that are static and ex-post, basic mistakes really, and it is telling that such mistakes happen to an economist like Scott.

    The Democratic Party obviously has more serious problems. Trump has pretty much screwed up the Corona pandemic, not to mention all his other mistakes and scandals, and yet Biden still can’t get the gap to widen much more. Trump may even be able to close the gap again, the elections odds site is now close to 50:50 again, an assessment that Scott seems to share.

    The Democratic Party constantly lies in its pockets with its talk about “demographic change” and a “popular vote” system, just to name two examples, both changes are supposed to help them, but in reality it doesn’t help them one bit in the long run. Candidates and voters are dynamic and will always adapt, where necessary, 50:50 races are the norm in the recent US system, which is a good thing, and no lie, no excuse, no tweak, no change, and no dirty trick will change that.

    Nor must it change ever, because if about one half of the population no longer has a real chance of gaining power, democracy will be doomed. So chill out and enjoy the sight.

  39. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    3. September 2020 at 04:04

    @Gene Frankle

    So it’s down to being “intellectually dishonest” because EC favors Republicans—-today—like that’s why I am for it. Because it’s “obvious” that the nature of the constitution was flawed due to this clause——which can be changed by voters.

    I don’t know you——-just from what you write here. To you and Scott I said it was “okay” to be against EC—-meaning it’s not an intellectually dishonest position to take. Although I disagree with the position.

    When a discussion devolves to motive questioning it is silly. I was in a PHD program in political philosophy for 5 years at Columbia -wrote several published papers including one on the Federalist Papers. Since this topic —-by definition boils down ultimately to ——for me at least——230 years of continuity—-as well as the thought process of a bunch of smarter guys than most—-I don’t take a position because it “favors” republicans. Like Scott, I consider myself Libertarian—-although this year I will vote for Trump. I am also a pragmatic voter. Who is the least worst? I happen t think Trump,is.

    Nor does my background make me “right”. I am happy for you that your position is obvious to you. But you will be forever frustrated——as states—-including NY and California ——would never change their own allocation of electoral college votes——let alone Texas and Oklahoma——which they can do today to match popular vote. I guess that makes them intellectually dishonest too.

    But it’s all moot anyway. While any thing is possible, changing this will not happen. The irony is it can happen de facto——without a constitutional amendment. Yet it still won’t.

    To me THAT is obvious.

  40. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    3. September 2020 at 07:13

    Here’s a little bit of good news. Some key demographics seem to have moved a bit against Trump in the last 4 years, including in almost all swing states:

    https://www.npr.org/2020/09/03/907433511/trumps-base-is-shrinking-as-whites-without-a-college-degree-continue-to-decline

    Couple this with the fact that Trump has done nothing to expand his base of support, and it’s unlikely he wins, even in a close race.

  41. Gravatar of Gene Frenkle Gene Frenkle
    3. September 2020 at 07:40

    Rulle, the Constitution is flawed because it contains clauses to perpetuate slavery and at one time it was amended to outlaw alcohol. The EC was necessary because of a clause that perpetuated slavery. And wanting keep the EC because it is unfair is a legitimate reason to keep it because Lincoln and the original Republican Party used it to keep a boot on the throats of racist backwards South.

  42. Gravatar of Dale Doback Dale Doback
    3. September 2020 at 08:42

    Arguing that the Electoral College is great because the US has been successful to me is like arguing that someone should never upgrade from the original iPhone. There’s no evidence the EC produces more centrist Presidents, but there are other systems we could adopt that do. I’ve still yet to hear an argument that is even remotely convincing of why the EC is a good thing.

  43. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    3. September 2020 at 09:39

    Effem, You said:

    “From a political sense, i’m not sure why you’re so focused on national income.”

    I’m not. Why do you think I am?

    Dale, You said:

    “Arguing that the Electoral College is great because the US has been successful to me is like arguing that someone should never upgrade from the original iPhone.”

    It’s even worse, indeed it’s downright laughable. A country has 1000s of characteristics, some good and some bad. Arguing that every single characteristic in a good country is ipso facto good and every single characteristic in a bad country is ipso facto bad is just absurd logic. Breathtakingly foolish.

    The EC isn’t even a MAJOR characteristic. Arguing for major characteristics such as democracy or capitalism on the basis of overall success would be questionable, but more understandable. But the EC? LOL.

  44. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    3. September 2020 at 12:30

    @Dale Doback

    Shouldn’t the burden of proof lie with those who want to change something? What exactly do you want to change and where is the proof that it will be better afterwards?

    Scott likes to talk about “banana republics”, but all classic banana republics on the American continent are presidential systems without EC. Systems that constantly elect demagogues into power. How many demagogues have the US elected to power recently with the EC? Most likely only one and only once. And that is supposed to be the reason to change the whole system now. What an absurd argument. LOL.

  45. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    3. September 2020 at 19:50

    @Dale Doback
    I wouldn’t say I was overwhelmed by your iPhone analogy, but there’s no need to dwell on that. I’m more interested in your claim that you see no evidence that the EC produces centrist Presidents and that you can point to other systems that do. Is there some reason you’re being coy about what those systems are?

  46. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    4. September 2020 at 07:08

    @ssumner
    You wrote:

    It’s even worse, indeed it’s downright laughable. A country has 1000s of characteristics, some good and some bad. Arguing that every single characteristic in a good country is ipso facto good and every single characteristic in a bad country is ipso facto bad is just absurd logic. Breathtakingly foolish.

    And here’s what I had actually written:

    I would say that’s pretty good evidence that the electoral college at least does not prevent success.

    For someone who often upbraids people for misreading what you have written…

Leave a Reply