Instead of a futile attempt to re-write the Constitution re: Electoral College...

[Wounded Bear]

what we should do is repeal the Permanent Reapportionment Act of 1929.

That's what capped the House at 435, and now we're being gerrymandered because the blue states are basically shuffling a fixed number of Reps around, while the Red states are sitting on far too many seats. The Senate is packed against us, and now the House is too small to offset that advantage. Based on population increases the House should be a bout 2-3 times as large as it is, and it would be concentrated in the blue states.

That wouldn't require an amendment, just an act of Congress.

[Chin music]

1. A very very interesting proposition.

Keep thinking about stuff will you? Sounds pretty good!!

[rampartc]

2. it would also make it 2-3 times more expensive to buy, er, lobby congresscritters

also, no reason for congress to spend so much time in dc. they should be videoconferencing from their home districts. make the lobbyists come to them.

[marylandblue]

3. Great idea!

[manor321]

4. Yes, Norman Ornstein has been advocating for this, adding at least 50 to 100 reps

However, in addition we should also do the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which accomplishes what we want without an amendment.

Constitution: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...

The states can decide how they choose their electors.

[Wounded Bear]

9. I actually don't like that...

it seems anti democratic to force a state to go against its population's vote.

[localroger]

10. That's only a problem if you are stuck on quaint notions of state sovereignty

The idea of the Compact is that by acting in concert, the participating states can force the country as a whole to go with the choice of the population of the country as a whole. Electoral votes then are not representative of the individual states; in an ideal implementation of the system all of the electors would unanimously vote the popular vote result. But since the system isn't perfect it fortunately only takes a majority of the electors to get the correct result.

Then, with the fait accompli, it would presumably be much easier to get an amendment through just doing away with the EC completely since nobody would be benefiting from it any more.

[Wounded Bear]

20. Condescention noted...

[fescuerescue]

25. Which means that it is a problem

States DO care about state sovereignty even if you and I don't.

Imagine what will happen if California or New York state is forced to vote Red and install a Red president. That law will be repealed within weeks after the election and certainly long before the EC college meets. With inauguration day 2.5 months after election day, there is ample time for any state to back out when it appears to produce a result contrary to the desire of that states wishes.

Even if the State doesn't act legislatively, the electors are still a check-valve. If the state elects a board of Blue electors, how many do you think will remain faithful and vote for a Red President? would you? (don't answer just think about it)


It may be quaint. But it's as real as the air we breath.

[localroger]

35. Faithless electors are a problem for the existing system

Nothing is perfect. The EC itself is the problem, and getting rid of it via a constitutional amendment is going to be practically impossible. The Compact is designed to be a solution that might be achievable, but again it is working through the flawed EC rather than just getting rid of it. It would have to be implemented by people who fully believe in its intended purpose, to elevate the national interest above the interest of individual states. This is the trend; you do hear the term "state's rights" quite a bit here in the south, but not usually from the Left.

[fescuerescue]

38. I'm not advocating states rights

Im explaining that states advocate for this own rights all by the own accord.

Yes faithless electors are a problem now. That's when a Blue elector doesn't vote Blue or a red elector doesn't vote red. A handful every election. We agree on that.

Now when those blue electors in blue states are told to vote red in compact states, while red electors in red states also vote red. That handful will turn into a wave.

And that's only if the state doesn't use those 2.5 months to rescind the compact.

Think about it. You really think California will allow it's electors to vote red? You really think Texas would allow it's electors to vote blue? MAYBE once. And that's when the compact goes into the trash heap.

[localroger]

40. We have red and blue electors because the parties choose them that way

The point of the Compact is that the states can choose their electors however they want; a Compact state would presumably select electors who have sworn to abide by the terms of the Compact. Most states, even those we think of as dark red or blue, are really pretty purple and while half the population is always going to be disappointed in the result, there is such a thing as taking a hit for the greater good. Haven't seen much of it lately in politics, I admit, but that is kind of what the Compact would be about. The most likely thing as it stands, though, is that it won't ever get to 270 and be implemented in any form.

[fescuerescue]

41. exactly

So do you think the Democratic party will EVER select electors who would vote Red? Do you think Republicans will EVER select electors who would vote Blue?

I just don't see that happening at the individual (elector) level or party level. Nor do I see population of any state not demanding that such a law be rescinded immediately.

I agree though - I think all this is academic. It makes for interesting discussion but I just don't see it getting that far.

[localroger]

42. Speaking academically, in a Compact state the electors wouldn't be selected by the parties.

In fact, my understanding is that the electors would be the same people regardless of who wins the statewide statewide election. Obvious partisanship would be disqualifying. But of course that's the way it would be supposed to work, and I agree there are many wrinkles that could appear in that fabric. But partisan red and blue electors would not be one of those problems unless they lied to get considered for their posts. Which is, of course, always a possibility, but not a pervasive certainty as it would be if the parties sent their own chosen electors to the EC.

[A Former Republican]

32. The compact needs states with 270 electoral votes

to go into effect. The small states will not give up the power they now have.

[elleng]

5. Interesting!

I hate the idea of Constitutional amendments, as I see the danger of setting THEM off to rewrite the whole thing >>>>> DISASTER.

[CurtEastPoint]

6. That same law did this, too:

The Act also did away with any mention of districts at all. This allowed political parties in control of a state legislature to draw district boundaries at will and to elect some or all representatives at large.

[exboyfil]

7. California would go from 53 to 69 Representatives

if we assume that the one Rep. is based on population of Wyoming.

A compromise way to level the field.

[Captain Stern]

11. Surprisingly, that wouldn't help as much as one would think.

A while back, I checked into how making those sorts of changes would have affected the last election. I was surprised by the results.

Here's a copy/paste from the post where I talked about it last time:




As we all know, donald trump 'won' the last election in the electoral college 306 to 232 (I gave the 7 faithless votes to the winner of the states in which they were cast in.) That's 56.9% of the electoral vote.

We also know that Clinton won the popular vote by two percentage points.

As things stand, there are a total of 538 electoral votes cast. This number comes from the fact that every state is allocated the amount of electoral votes equivalent to the sum of its Representatives and Senators. The District of Columbia receives the same amount of electoral votes as the smallest state (3).

Every state is represented equally in the Senate, with two Senators each. The number of Representatives each state receives is supposed to be proportional to their relative populations, but it's really not, because the total number of House members is capped at 435, and since the state with the lowest population has to receive at least one rep, the number of reps that the larger states get tends to be depressed.

For example:

In the last census (2010) Wyoming had a population of 563,767, and they received one Representative. California had a population of 37,252,895, and received 53 Representatives.

However if we were to say that every 563,767 citizens should be represented by one member in the House, then California should receive 66 ( 37,252,895/563,767) Representatives...not 53.

So, I got curious how the House would look if we didn't cap it at 435, and we assigned Representatives to every group of 563,767 people. I also wanted to see how the last election would have looked if it had been conducted with this system.

With this system, the new House would have 548 members instead of 435. The new electoral college would have 650 electors (548 + 102). And trump would have won the election 369 to 281. His percentage of electoral votes would have essentially remained unchanged. This surprised me.

I then decided to see what would happen in the last election if we hadn't assigned electoral votes based on the total of Representatives and Senators, but assigned them based only on the number of Representatives. This would reduce the amount of electoral votes to 436 (538 - 102). trump still would have won 246-190..again almost the same percentage. Again, I found this surprising.

Then I tried redoing the election with the increased number of Representatives and getting rid of electoral votes for Senators. This put the electoral college at 548. trump would have still won 309-239, and still not gotten a significantly smaller percentage of the total. I actually found this sort of stunning.

I thought for sure that Clinton would have won the last election using the final method, and I would have bet that she would have won it with at least one of the other two.

In any case, I don't think this really proves anything or disproves anything. I just found it interesting.

[exboyfil]

12. Thanks for the analysis

Definitely something to think about.

[Celerity]

19. that's the so-called Wyoming Rule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule#In_the_current_House_(2010_Census)

I find it far too little an increase in the size of the House.

1001 is the bare minimum needed, and also will help with legislation as well (as the membership will be far more equitably spread out)

really good site

https://www.thirty-thousand.org/

also see

The case for massively expanding the US House of Representatives, in one chart

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/4/17417452/congress-representation-ratio-district-size-chart-graph



It’s Time To Increase The Size of the House

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/its-time-to-increase-the-size-of-the-house/



To Fix Congress, Make It Bigger. Much Bigger.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november-december-2018/to-fix-congress-make-it-bigger-much-bigger/




None of that, unfortunately, deals with the incoming demographic nightmare of the Senate, which in 20 years or so will have 70% of its seats controlled by just 30% of the population, and that 30% is far more reactionary right wing, more white, less educated, older, and more fundamentally religious that the other 70%.


In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/12/in-about-20-years-half-the-population-will-live-in-eight-states/

In response to Post opinion writer Paul Waldman’s essay about the current power of the minority in American politics, the American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein offered a stunning bit of data on Twitter.

I want to repeat a statistic I use in every talk: by 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. And the 30% will be older, whiter, more rural, more male than the 70 percent. Unsettling to say the least.

Link to tweet

By 2040, two-thirds of Americans will be represented by 30 percent of the Senate

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/By-2040-americans-senate-represented-pence-warren-12389306.php

[thesquanderer]

44. States that are "older" now may not be older in 2040.

Older people have a habit of dying off. Few states have an on-going influx of new older people to replace them.

[Wounded Bear]

8. Us Population at 1920 census was 106 million, 2010 309 million...

almost 3 times more. Next time we get the House, Senate and WH, we need to get on this.

[2naSalit]

13. Makes more sense than

taking representation away from small population states.

[DavidDvorkin]

14. Better yet, let's try to do both

One does not preclude the other.

[UniteFightBack]

15. Either that or we need a Democrat relocation program to red areas. I would do this in retirement.

I'm serious about this.

[BigmanPigman]

16. That may actually happen when Climate Change

makes the sea levels rise, forcing people to move inland. Of course you'd have to wait about 100 or so years.

[mountain grammy]

17. Yes, yes, yes!

Been writing my Congress people about this for years.. We are unrepresented!

[cstanleytech]

18. What about a court challenge to the law itself? After all what it imposes is not

in the Constitution itself.

[Skinner]

21. I've been saying the same thing.

It seems so obvious. The Constitution isn't going to be amended to get rid of the Electoral College. It's a pipe dream. Instead, we should dilute the red state advantage in the electoral college by packing the House.

[world wide wally]

22. If it is too big of a lift to eliminate the EC,

I would just like to see it made fair and equitable be apportioning the number of electoral votes according to a rigid formula based on population. At least that would be more equitable and easier to get passed in the senste

[Wounded Bear]

23. Any change like that would need an amendment, and thus a "heavy lift"...

[ProfessorPlum]

24. The Electoral College is already 2/3 of the way to being made functionally gone

without an amendment. We should all get on board for the national popular vote, and stop giving small state voters more than twice the power of large state voters to determine the presidency.

[DBoon]

26. I recall efforts after prohibition passed to prevent re-aaportionment

Supporters of prohibition were concerned that the rising power of urban voters would reverse their constitutional amendment.

I wonder if this was part of this?

An effort 100 years ago to freeze in a rural majority and disenfranchise urban immigrant communities

[Blues Heron]

27. I think if you have fewer than a million people you really shoudn't be a state.

they can roll the low pop states into adjacent ones.

[fescuerescue]

39. I think that I should be able to fly

But that's far more likely than states willing dissolving themselves into their neighbor.

[MarvinGardens]

28. Great idea, and totally possible.

[librechik]

29. thanks for the great idea!

but "just an act of congress" is a big ask.

[Wounded Bear]

30. True, but still easier than an amendment...nt

[librechik]

31. you betcha! You made my day!

2020 when we take both houses.

[A Former Republican]

33. Not going to happen

No small God-fearing rural state, red or blue, is going to give up the power they have to prevent America from changing too much. They see the big city (like Sodom and Gomorrah) states as the home of fake news, hip-hop, and the devil himself. They believe these big city states already have too much power. The God-fearing states say just look at how the big city states have already changed America, killing babies before they are born, and saying it is okay for a man to be with a man. The God-fearing states thank God they have been able to prevent more changes from happening and they hope with the courts they can roll back some of the evil changes that have already occurred.

In many ways, there are two Americas. One is not going to give up power to the other.

[GulfCoast66]

36. Actually it is very doable. Had we know we could have done it in 09.

The numbers in the house are controlled by congress.

[Bettie]

34. Both my husband and I have been saying this for several years

yeah, they'd have to build a new building or have several sites and have remote sessions, but the technology is there.

[GulfCoast66]

37. Been wanting this forever.

Germany with only 80 million residents has almost twice as many in their congress than we do.

I should say parliament when speaking of Germany.

[PufPuf23]

43. What about the obvious?

That we the Democratic party make a major move to strengthen our political presence in red states and rural areas to capture more Senators and Electoral College votes for the Democratic party?

That is exactly what FDR did. The WPA, CCC, etc. brought jobs, infrastructure, and being part of the nation to rural USA. Much of what is now Red States or GOP rural was Democratic.

Demographics will change. Rural and Red USA is no more monolithic than urban coastal USA.

I don't think the system is broken; rather times are bad and ripe for a new initiative.