The real problem with the Electoral College is that is an artificial construct,

[Perky]

It is constructed to be equivalent to Seantors+Represantatives with special consideration for DC. That is fine in theory, but Congreess has self-capped the size of the House at 435 members. Since every state has at least 1 Congressperson you are really dealing with a distibution of 385 elecrose across the 50 states based on population and that creates great disparities in the ratio of reps to population which in turn creates problems with the Elecoratal vote proportionality. And really messes with the Constirution principle of One oerson/one vote.

If Wyoming has the smallest population and they get 2+1 EVs, then each state should get 2+ a number of EVs equal to that state's population dividied by Wyoming's population. That is the proper way to do proportion electors.

It needs to be untied from the amount of reps in Congress because the cap on size give small states to much electoral power. Either that or remove the cap on the size of the House one rep per every 500,000 people or one electoral vote for every 500,000 people.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. that would mean 600 congressmen

which would be fine by me, since that would benefit us.

[Perky]

5. That is one way to solve the problem

While the instituin becomes more unwieldly, it also becomes more democratic and the power of lobbyists is decreased.

The framers set up a purely mathematical model of one rep for every 35,000 residents. That would mean a People House of something like 10,000 members. Ha.


Obviously you have to have some sort of cap on membership, but what is fair? One for every 500,000 seems reasonable,

[salguine]

14. 600!? Geez...We have 535 now, and 532 of them are useless.

[Perky]

15. actually we have 435, but I'll bite

which three are not useless?

[salguine]

16. I meant 535 in both houses. The only three I'd keep are Waxman, Wexler, and Kucinich.

[Perky]

17. What no Maxine Waters? No Bernie Sanders?

[GoesTo11]

2. Did you do the math?

The real problem is the 2 votes for Senators. Actually, there is one member of the house for each 690,000 people. The 3 smallest states and DC have between 520,000 and 640,000, but that's pretty close. The total benefit that these states have in total about 1/2 extra representative between them. Furthermore, that's split evenly between red and blue. But with Senators, Wyoming gets one EV per 173000 people while the country on average has one EV per 570000 people. The triple representation comes from the senators, not the congress cap.

[Perky]

13. 520K vs 640K is a huge difference

When you are talking about Highly urbanized states.

California has a current population of 36,553,215 and 53 Reps that is one rep for every 689,500.

If you took the Wyoming population of 522,000 as the divisor, they should have 70 reps in an uncapped system. That is 17 more reps and electoral votes.

[treestar]

3. That was the idea though, originally

States were entities of note, much stronger than they are today. Originally the state legislatures elected the two Senators. A state got credit for being a state, however small or lower in population.

Technically, the Senators represent their states (as opposed to the populace). The representatives represent the people. This is less democratic, but it is the way it was set up to be. Each colony existed on its own and had to agree to be part of the Confederacy. So there was much respect for them as entities.

Nowadays that does not seem as important, and states are looked at almost as departments of the federal government. But they legally aren't, they are different governments. There is much litigation on the line between state and federal powers.

[Richardo]

7. Nice informative post

:patriot:

[Warren Stupidity]

4. The theory that states and not people should elect the president

is the fundamental flaw. The president should be directly elected by the people using an instant runoff system that guarantees that the president is elected with more than half the votes cast. The states are amply represented as territorial units in the senate. At the time the constitution was written we were a very shakey coalition of 13 newly independent colonies. Since at least 1865 we have been a single unified Republic and it is way past time that we acted as one nation in choosing our leader.

[Perky]

8. I agree, but it won't change,

That is a Constitutional change and you have to go through the states for a constitutional amendment


Blue states of ME, NH, VT, RI, DE, NM and HI would all object
Red States of WV, NE, ND, SD, MT, ID, UT, AK would all object

That 15 state coalition means it will never happen.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Fine, but somewhat tangental to what the fundamental problem is.

Your new point is an issue of what is practical to do, not what is the fundamental problem.

[Perky]

11. Well let's figure out what we can give small population states in exchange,

If we are talking about the composition of Congress it has to begin with the notion of bicameralism. ANd the Senate has to be based on something other than population.


Ot is not simply that the states should have quality in the Senate, It is that Senators represent the interest of the entire state rather than some portion of the population. I think there is something to be said for that. It is less of an issue in small states in the East, but big states with more diverse population in the West share territorial concerns like water rights.


The Senate has always seemed asymmetric to me. Seems to me each state should be electing a Senator every two years thus each state should have three Senators not two,

[Richardo]

6. So is democracy, when you come right down to it

[underpants]

9. It was designed to prevent Virginia dominance early on

Which worked out SO WELL huh?

[GeorgeGist]

12. That's like saying the real problem with countries is that ...

they are artificial constructs defined by arbitrary borders and populations.