Hey progressive! Your problem with the Electoral College is your fault.
The answer to all you whiners about the Electoral College. and those that wanted to know.
Wahh But the popular vote. Shove it. This ain't a democracy. It is a Republic. Period.
Wahh Small states have outsized influence. Yeah, well, it is the states that decide the Presidency, not the uninformed public, thank heavens. See the 1st answer
Wahh. Slave owners wrote the Constitution, counting blacks as only 3/5ths of a person. Are you kidding? Every single person that makes this argument should be banned forever from voting, regardless of race. This was a compromise that benefited the north, not the south. By limiting the population by counting slaves as 3/5ths actually reduced the influence of the South in the House of Representatives.
What is the problem?
A State's representation in the Electoral College is simple. One member for each Representative a state has in the House, and a member for each of the two Senators. Oh, and for some stupid reason, the District of Columbia has 3 votes. So, 538 is the total, of which one has to get 270 to have a clear majority, to win the White House.
How to fix it?
One way is to break up some of the states, into smaller ones, more equitably distributing the populations. I am thinking of 3, California, New York, and Texas. These states have large populations, and are ideologically diverse, along general geographic lines. I won't elaborate on the how, but you can google it, there is a bunch of well reasoned thought on it.
That would still leave 435 Representatives, and however many Senators to add to the total.
In 1911, the Apportionment Act was enacted, limiting the number of Representatives to 435. Not sure what those wacky progressives were doing then, but with a population of 92 Million, that equals roughly 1 for every 211,000. That would equate to about 1,600 members of Congress today.
What does that look like? Wyoming has 3 votes. Population 500,000. California has 55. Population 35 million, or 1 vote for every 636,000. See the issue? Wyoming has 3 times the representation for the population than California. so, if there were 1,600 Electoral Votes (1 for every 211,000 consistent with 1911), California would have 150 or so, compared to the 3 votes that Wyoming would still have. This actually would render the popular vote far more important. Simple right?
oh, and having so many Congressmen would eliminate most of the gerrymandering we keep hearing about.
All you have to do is get all those little states to vote themselves into irrelevancy in the Congress by agreeing to increase the membership.
Madison thought that there should be no more reps than 1 for every 30,000 people. If you were to take that number today, that would equal about 11,000 members in the House of Representatives.
I personally like the thought of 11,000 members of congress. Think about how much the lobbying budget for all those crony capitalists would be. It might be worth it.
Wahh But the popular vote. Shove it. This ain't a democracy. It is a Republic. Period.
Wahh Small states have outsized influence. Yeah, well, it is the states that decide the Presidency, not the uninformed public, thank heavens. See the 1st answer
Wahh. Slave owners wrote the Constitution, counting blacks as only 3/5ths of a person. Are you kidding? Every single person that makes this argument should be banned forever from voting, regardless of race. This was a compromise that benefited the north, not the south. By limiting the population by counting slaves as 3/5ths actually reduced the influence of the South in the House of Representatives.
What is the problem?
A State's representation in the Electoral College is simple. One member for each Representative a state has in the House, and a member for each of the two Senators. Oh, and for some stupid reason, the District of Columbia has 3 votes. So, 538 is the total, of which one has to get 270 to have a clear majority, to win the White House.
How to fix it?
One way is to break up some of the states, into smaller ones, more equitably distributing the populations. I am thinking of 3, California, New York, and Texas. These states have large populations, and are ideologically diverse, along general geographic lines. I won't elaborate on the how, but you can google it, there is a bunch of well reasoned thought on it.
That would still leave 435 Representatives, and however many Senators to add to the total.
In 1911, the Apportionment Act was enacted, limiting the number of Representatives to 435. Not sure what those wacky progressives were doing then, but with a population of 92 Million, that equals roughly 1 for every 211,000. That would equate to about 1,600 members of Congress today.
What does that look like? Wyoming has 3 votes. Population 500,000. California has 55. Population 35 million, or 1 vote for every 636,000. See the issue? Wyoming has 3 times the representation for the population than California. so, if there were 1,600 Electoral Votes (1 for every 211,000 consistent with 1911), California would have 150 or so, compared to the 3 votes that Wyoming would still have. This actually would render the popular vote far more important. Simple right?
oh, and having so many Congressmen would eliminate most of the gerrymandering we keep hearing about.
All you have to do is get all those little states to vote themselves into irrelevancy in the Congress by agreeing to increase the membership.
Madison thought that there should be no more reps than 1 for every 30,000 people. If you were to take that number today, that would equal about 11,000 members in the House of Representatives.
I personally like the thought of 11,000 members of congress. Think about how much the lobbying budget for all those crony capitalists would be. It might be worth it.
Comments
Post a Comment