Autocrat vs Institutionalist

[undershepherd]

I chose other. I think what is needed is less autocracy and less institutionalism. A more decentralized approach to government that returns decision making towards more local forms of government. Perhaps this is a different form of institutionalism.

[Dan Z]

I chose other. I think what is needed is less autocracy and less institutionalism. A more decentralized approach to government that returns decision making towards more local forms of government. Perhaps this is a different form of institutionalism.

This makes sense.

Both Autocrats and Institutionalists seek to consolidate power - the first works to circumvent or override the system, the second seeks to exploit or maximize their influence within the system. A well-crafted system of Decentralization will likely help limit the power of both Autocrat and Institutionalist. In many ways, this is what the framers of the US Constitution worked at achieving.

[Josh]

I’d agree with US’s perspective. We’re not supposed to be a “one size fits all” nation. Some states and cities can choose to be authoritarian (the corrupt cities like Chicago come to mind), others institutionalist, and yet others can choose a third way. Where I live, people mostly self govern, and so very little institutional or authoritarian structure is needed. I think this is the best way.

[Ken]

Ken, I’m speaking of the present, not 200 years ago. Democrats frequently talk about how terrible the electoral college.

America wouldn’t exist without the electoral college because smaller states (most of which weren’t slave states) wouldn’t have joined the Union. They wanted representation instead of everything being dominated by the most populous states.

The electoral college isn’t “undemocratic”. Every state gets electors based on its population. To ensure it is fair, every state also gets electors just like the Senate does. America is a republic, not a direct democracy. Nobody ever has claimed otherwise.

and

I think the fact that you have a system where in fact less populated areas have a chance to be heard is a good thing. Even the way things are presently urban interests are far more likely to be heard over rural which I think is a bad thing.

One other thing to keep in mind as well. Because of the electoral college system parties plan their campaigning accordingly. My guess is that as close as the majority vote was this time around, had the outcome actually been based on it Trump would of spent far more time in places like California and the west coast and could very well have more than made up the difference.

In point of fact, the electoral college advantages neither small states nor rural states. That's simply a fact.

Also it is not historically correct to claim that the small states supported the electoral college. It was the slave states in the south that insisted on the electoral college because it allowed them to use their slaves to balance out the north which was more populous in terms of free population. I think you are confusing the electoral college with the Senate. It was the small states that pushed for a Senate and that was ultimately resolved with the "Connecticut Compromise" that gave us a bicameral legislature with both a House and Senate. But small states were not particularly pushing for the electoral college, that was the slave states.

In fact, the electoral college means that small or rural states almost certainly never elect presidents. In the history of the country, only two presidents have come from small states. Franklin Pierce (New Hampshire) and Bill Clinton (Arkansas). There were some who were born in small states but who only rose to power after moving to and representing larger states.

In any event, let's examine both of your propositions that the electoral college favors small states and rural states.

First let's look at small states: The 20 smallest states in the country are:

Wyoming (586,485)
Vermont (647,818)
Alaska (733,536)
North Dakota (788,940)
South Dakota (928,767)
Delaware (1,044,321)
Rhode Island (1,098,082)
Montana (1,142,746)
Maine (1,402,106)
New Hampshire (1,405,105)
Hawaii (1,430,877)
West Virginia (1,766,107)
Nebraska (1,988,698)
Idaho (1,990,456)
New Mexico (2,115,266)
Mississippi (2,940,452)
Kansas (2,944,376)
Arkansas (3,089,060)
Nevada (3,210,931)
Iowa (3,214,315)

Now let's look at rural states. According to the census, the 20 most rural states in the country (with the percentage of population that is rural) are:

Vermont 64.9%
Maine 61.4%
West Virginia 55.4%
Mississippi 53.7%
Montana 46.6%
Arkansas 44.5%
South Dakota 42.8%
Alabama 42.3%
New Hampshire 41.7%
Kentucky 41.3%
North Dakota 39%
Wyoming 38%
Iowa 36.8%
Oklahoma 35.4%
Alaska 35.1%
Tennessee 33.8%
North Carolina 33.3%
Wisconsin 32.9%
South Carolina 32.1%
Idaho 30.8%

What do you notice about that these two lists? In terms of small states, the only one that is currently in play for the presidency is Nevada at #19. And in terms of rural states, only one of them, Wisconsin at #18, is a swing state.

What does this mean? It means that NEITHER small states nor rural states really affect the outcome of our presidential elections. And, outside of WI and NV, neither party nor candidate is going to spend much time campaigning in any of the 20 smallest or 20 most rural states. You know this as well as me.

What we actually have in this country with the electoral college is a system in which only the voters in a few swing states (whose partisan breakdown most closely match that of the nation as a whole) are the ones who decide elections. In 2020 the 5 closest states were

Georgia
Arizona
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
North Carolina

None of those are particularly small or rural states. What the electoral college gives us is a system in which the voters in 5 swing states determine the election. And in 2020 those 5 states represented 14% of the population. The smallest and most rural states are largely ignored when it comes to campaigning. Because they are not swing states. And what makes a swing state? Obviously it isn't being small or rural. What makes a swing state is closely matching the partisan breakdown of the nation as a whole. Because of the electoral college, the 2024 campaign is going to be won and lost in places like the suburbs of Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Phoenix. Those are neither small nor rural places.

You two are from Illinois and Ohio. No one is going to much bother campaigning in those states because they are not swing states. Ohio once was but no longer. Likewise, I'm from Washington and no one is going to spend much time campaigning in WA either. Because none of us live in swing states our votes really don't matter. And if the election tilted to such a degree that any of our states were competitive then it would be a landslide anyway.

At present the distribution of states the electoral college currently favors Republican candidates but it could easily swing in the other direction. All it would take is Texas to flip and Democrats would be able to largely lock up the election simply by controlling the 3 largest states (CA, NY, and TX). You don't think that is possible? In 2000 which was a very close election nationally, TX voted Republican by 19 percentage points. Eight years later the gap narrowed to 12 points. By 2020 that gap had shrunk to about 5%. Why? Because Texas is growing increasingly urban and diverse. With a couple more percentage points Texas will be a true swing state and the national election will be decided by voters in the Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio metro areas where the bulk of the state lives. That is the opposite of small and rural. And suddenly it would be Republicans who would be complaining about the electoral college.

Is the electoral college more democratic than a pure autocracy with no elections? Of course. But is it truly democratic? Of course not. It is undemocratic by design.

[ohio jones]

In 2020 the 5 closest states were

Georgia
Arizona
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
North Carolina

None of those are particularly small or rural states. What the electoral college gives us is a system in which the voters in 5 swing states determine the election. And in 2020 those 5 states represented 14% of the population. The smallest and most rural states are largely ignored when it comes to campaigning. Because they are not swing states.

With a couple more percentage points Texas will be a true swing state and the national election will be decided by voters in the Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio metro areas where the bulk of the state lives.

Maybe it isn't entirely possible to identify the swingiest states until after the election actually happens.

[Dan Z]

By the way, I'm pretty sure the Autocrat/Institutionalist dichotomy is not playing a major role in the selection process of the electorate. Maybe I'm being a bit cynical, but it seems like the motivation for the average voter is more short-term in nature. More often than not people are voting for the person they think can best get things done for their perceived immediate betterment...the thinking is - If an Autocrat can make that happen (even if he undermines democratic institutions and stability in the long-run) more power to him.

[Ken]

In 2020 the 5 closest states were

Georgia
Arizona
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
North Carolina

None of those are particularly small or rural states. What the electoral college gives us is a system in which the voters in 5 swing states determine the election. And in 2020 those 5 states represented 14% of the population. The smallest and most rural states are largely ignored when it comes to campaigning. Because they are not swing states.

With a couple more percentage points Texas will be a true swing state and the national election will be decided by voters in the Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio metro areas where the bulk of the state lives.

Maybe it isn't entirely possible to identify the swingiest states until after the election actually happens.

Possibly. Times change. But Temporal1's argument is that the electoral college means that people in rural areas or less populated areas have a chance of being heard. But that isn't actually what happens. No one campaigns in the less populated parts of Idaho, Mississippi, or North Dakota because they are not swing states. Candidates focus their campaign energy on what they perceive to be swing states (or battleground states). And those states tend not to be small or rural.

In 2020 the 10 closest states were (from most Republican to Democrat):

Texas (5.6% GOP)
Florida (3.4% (GOP)
North Carolina (1.3% GOP)
Georgia (0.24% DEM)
Arizona (0.31% DEM)
Wisconsin (0.63% DEM)
Pennsylvania (1.2% DEM)
Nevada (2.4% DEM)
Michigan (2.8% DEM)
Minnesota (7.1% DEM)

And because we have an electoral college and not a popular vote, the 2020 election wasn't very close. Biden won by about 14% (306 to 232) which isn't very close at all. Biden won very handily.

Those are the same states that are expected to decide the 2024 election as well. And those are the "battleground" states where candidates are likely to spend the bulk of their time and effort.

What do you notice about those 10 states? None of them are particularly small or or rural. In fact they are pretty median, which is what makes them swing states.

Maybe 2024 will be different and some new state will leap into the fray as a battleground like Alabama or Washington, but no one actually believes that. Whoever wins in 2024 will do so because they appealed to voters in those 10 states (which are mostly suburban voters). Not because they focused on small states or rural areas.

[Ken]

By the way, I'm pretty sure the Autocrat/Institutionalist dichotomy is not playing a major role in the selection process of the electorate. Maybe I'm being a bit cynical, but it seems like the motivation for the average voter is more short-term in nature. More often than not people are voting for the person they think can best get things done for their perceived immediate betterment...the thinking is - If an Autocrat can make that happen (even if he undermines democratic institutions and stability in the long-run) more power to him.

I disagree.

A big part of Trump's appeal to his base is his autocratic tendences. That he will round up millions of immigrants and detain/deport them. That he will crack down on protests on college campuses and crime in the cities. And that he will advantage evangelical Christians and business conservatives, who are both minorities in this country and who hold minority opinions.

[barnhart]

My guess is most favor autocracy when their favored positions are in a minority position.

[Josh]

I disagree.

A big part of Trump's appeal to his base is his autocratic tendences. That he will round up millions of immigrants and detain/deport them. That he will crack down on protests on college campuses and crime in the cities. And that he will advantage evangelical Christians and business conservatives, who are both minorities in this country and who hold minority opinions.

I don’t think that’s his appeal, although I am aware that is what anti-Trump people think. That doesn’t mean it’s actually true.

As far as rounding up millions of immigrants and detaining and deporting them, that would seem to be Institutionalist to me, not Authoritarian. Simply enforcing the Institutions already set up and the immigrant laws already in force. I don’t think it’s “authoritarian” to enforce laws and give institutions like Dept of HS a mandate to maintain law and order.