Why not practically double the ELECTORAL COLLEGE to 1100?

[cannonia]

A better idea than tinkering with the Electoral College's size would be to double the size of the House of Representatives, making that body more accountable and representative at the same time.

Getting rid of the EC and the primary season and implementing instant runoff voting would be a good change, though.

[Franzl]

A better idea than tinkering with the Electoral College's size would be to double the size of the House of Representatives, making that body more accountable and representative at the same time.

But that would have virtually the same effect, it wouldn't quite double it, but what's the difference?

Getting rid of the EC and the primary season and implementing instant runoff voting would be a good change, though.

I agree.

[cannonia]

A better idea than tinkering with the Electoral College's size would be to double the size of the House of Representatives, making that body more accountable and representative at the same time.

But that would have virtually the same effect, it wouldn't quite double it, but what's the difference?

It would only take an act of Congress to enact, it would be simple since the formulas wouldn't change, and it would cut the ridiculous size of House districts.

[Bluegrass Cruiser 420]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would be inclined to disagree.

On the first point - The Bill of Rights, 10th Amendment gives the States the powers (rights?) not granted by the constitution to the federal government nor prohibited by the constitution.  Often referred to as "States Rights".

On the second point - I look at it this way.  By way of the EC, States (not individuals) vote for the offices of President and Vice President.  The number of votes (i.e. Electors) that a State gets is proportional to is Congressional representation.  This is precisely why a candidate can win the "popular vote" by only a small portion within a State, and yet recieve the entire, non-proportional allotment of the State's EC votes.  (ME and NE of course being the exception to the non-proportionality argument).

Furthermore, according to the 12th amendment, if the Presidential election is thrown to the HoR, each State gets one vote for President.

You sir are correct!

[Хahar 🤔]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would be inclined to disagree.

On the first point - The Bill of Rights, 10th Amendment gives the States the powers (rights?) not granted by the constitution to the federal government nor prohibited by the constitution.  Often referred to as "States Rights".

On the second point - I look at it this way.  By way of the EC, States (not individuals) vote for the offices of President and Vice President.  The number of votes (i.e. Electors) that a State gets is proportional to is Congressional representation.  This is precisely why a candidate can win the "popular vote" by only a small portion within a State, and yet recieve the entire, non-proportional allotment of the State's EC votes.  (ME and NE of course being the exception to the non-proportionality argument).

Furthermore, according to the 12th amendment, if the Presidential election is thrown to the HoR, each State gets one vote for President.

You sir are correct!

That is an outmoded style of thinking. The Framers of the Constitution obviously did not trust the people. But the Framers of almost every modern state constitution did. There's no reason states should get votes.

[RouterJockey]

I just had a crazy thought regarding the EC.  I think we can draw some parallels between the EC and our income tax system.

Because every state gets 2 extra EVs, it in essence adds a certain amount of "progressiveness" to the system.  Much like income taxes, those that are disadvantaged (poor in PV) are given a leg up, while those that are PV rich are "penalized".

Seems that those that receive an advantage from the EC generally support it, while those that are penalized by the EC don't.

[Хahar 🤔]

I just had a crazy thought regarding the EC.  I think we can draw some parallels between the EC and our income tax system.

Because every state gets 2 extra EVs, it in essence adds a certain amount of "progressiveness" to the system.  Much like income taxes, those that are disadvantaged (poor in PV) are given a leg up, while those that are PV rich are "penalized".

Seems that those that receive an advantage from the EC generally support it, while those that are penalized by the EC don't.

That got me laughing. Thanks.

But that analogy fails on so many levels.

[RouterJockey]

I just had a crazy thought regarding the EC.  I think we can draw some parallels between the EC and our income tax system.

Because every state gets 2 extra EVs, it in essence adds a certain amount of "progressiveness" to the system.  Much like income taxes, those that are disadvantaged (poor in PV) are given a leg up, while those that are PV rich are "penalized".

Seems that those that receive an advantage from the EC generally support it, while those that are penalized by the EC don't.

That got me laughing. Thanks.

But that analogy fails on so many levels.

Hey - I did qualify it with saying it was a "crazy thought"...  :-)

[Albus Dumbledore]

This isn't a bad idea but it's still less good than outright tossing the EC. The Electoral college was a good idea back in the early 19th century when travel was soley by horseback and there weren't even telegraphs. Now it's an anachronism that fits only in the museum.

[Joe Biden 2020]

This isn't a bad idea but it's still less good than outright tossing the EC. The Electoral college was a good idea back in the early 19th century when travel was soley by horseback and there weren't even telegraphs. Now it's an anachronism that fits only in the museum.

I like the EC, simply because without it states like Wyoming would have but a whisper and California would have a big roar.  I'd rather have the small state disproportionatly favored, because IT GIVES THEM A VOICE.  I don't think there is a single soul in this nation who wants the small states to be forced to bow down to the dominating voice of the big states.

[Franzl]

This isn't a bad idea but it's still less good than outright tossing the EC. The Electoral college was a good idea back in the early 19th century when travel was soley by horseback and there weren't even telegraphs. Now it's an anachronism that fits only in the museum.

I like the EC, simply because without it states like Wyoming would have but a whisper and California would have a big roar.  I'd rather have the small state disproportionatly favored, because IT GIVES THEM A VOICE.  I don't think there is a single soul in this nation who wants the small states to be forced to bow down to the dominating voice of the big states.

You're assuming that big states would all vote equally.

And you're basically assuming that someone from Wyoming is worth more than someone from Pennsylvania. Be proud of yourself.

[Albus Dumbledore]

What makes the small states more deserving of a voice in presidential elections than big ones? You're already over-represented in the house of reps.

[Franzl]

What makes the small states more deserving of a voice in presidential elections than big ones? You're already over-represented in the house of reps. Senate.

Guess that's what you meant.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Wyoming has about 500,000 people and gets a representative while places like california only get 1 representative for every 700,000 or so people. Isn't that biased in favor of the small states? But yes, they do have too much weight in the senate(something I'd solve by turning the senate into a soley ceremonial body).

[Bogart]

Why not just get rid of states altogether? That would solve the problem.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Not really. I don't trust the majority US electorate(mostly centered in the south/midwest) to vote on issues affecting me(I'm nonwhite, non-christian, plan to live in an urban area AKA p. much everything the electorate tends to not be). I think the blue states, Nevada and Puerto Rico need more autonomy than the rest of the nation.. We're vastly outnumbered by the overwhelmingly protestant heartland states and our culture needs to be protected. What additional degree of autonomy is debateable but we definately need a significant degree more.(personally, I'd be happy with federal court rulings on social issues not applying, only half of federal income tax from the blue states going to the feds(to make up for us not getting our money back), exemption from selective service registration as a start)

[Franzl]

Not really. I don't trust the majority US electorate(mostly centered in the south/midwest) to vote on issues affecting me(I'm nonwhite, non-christian, plan to live in an urban area AKA p. much everything the electorate tends to not be). I think the blue states, Nevada and Puerto Rico need more autonomy than the rest of the nation.. We're vastly outnumbered by the overwhelmingly protestant heartland states and our culture needs to be protected. What additional degree of autonomy is debateable but we definately need a significant degree more.(personally, I'd be happy with federal court rulings on social issues not applying, only half of federal income tax from the blue states going to the feds(to make up for us not getting our money back), exemption from selective service registration as a start)

ummmmmm, LOL?

[Albus Dumbledore]

What? You trust the feds these days?

[Хahar 🤔]

That's an interesting attitude. Even if I agree with much of what you said, the conclusion doesn't really follow.

[Bluegrass Cruiser 420]

I will say this much about this debate, few people on this board understand the EC.  Not only did the founders not trust the poeple (there are just too many voters with about 2 brain cells a piece who should do their country a favor and not vote), but they didn't want only the major population centers to determine the presidential election.

Do you honestly think any presidential candidate would pay any attention to Wyoming, the Dakotas,  or the People's Republic of Vermont if their were no EC giving them any real input in the election.  Some might argued they are largely ignored now besides maybe a primary election or two but just wait when our presidential election is simply decide by New York city, LA, Chicago, Houston and Dallas (and maybe a hand full of other cities).

[Bogart]

I will say this much about this debate, few people on this board understand the EC.  Not only did the founders not trust the poeple (there are just too many voters with about 2 brain cells a piece who should do their country a favor and not vote), but they didn't want only the major population centers to determine the presidential election.

Do you honestly think any presidential candidate would pay any attention to Wyoming, the Dakotas,  or the People's Republic of Vermont if their were no EC giving them any real input in the election.  Some might argued they are largely ignored now besides maybe a primary election or two but just wait when our presidential election is simply decide by New York city, LA, Chicago, Houston and Dallas (and maybe a hand full of other cities).

That's exactly right as far as the reason the College exists. And I tend to favor keeping things pretty much the same. I do agree that eliminating the EC entirely would cause all but very close elections to be decided by the largest urban areas--and would heavily favor the Democrats. A third option in my mind seems best if we're going to change anything. Getting rid of winner take all and dividing EC votes proportionately according the the popular vote in each state would certainly make things a little more reflective of popular opinion without eliminating  entirely the role that states play in an election.

[Franzl]

I will say this much about this debate, few people on this board understand the EC.  Not only did the founders not trust the poeple (there are just too many voters with about 2 brain cells a piece who should do their country a favor and not vote), but they didn't want only the major population centers to determine the presidential election.

Do you honestly think any presidential candidate would pay any attention to Wyoming, the Dakotas,  or the People's Republic of Vermont if their were no EC giving them any real input in the election.  Some might argued they are largely ignored now besides maybe a primary election or two but just wait when our presidential election is simply decide by New York city, LA, Chicago, Houston and Dallas (and maybe a hand full of other cities).

Absolutely, Wyoming and the Dakotas will defintely get a lot of attention this year.

[Хahar 🤔]

I will say this much about this debate, few people on this board understand the EC.  Not only did the founders not trust the poeple (there are just too many voters with about 2 brain cells a piece who should do their country a favor and not vote), but they didn't want only the major population centers to determine the presidential election.

Do you honestly think any presidential candidate would pay any attention to Wyoming, the Dakotas,  or the People's Republic of Vermont if their were no EC giving them any real input in the election.  Some might argued they are largely ignored now besides maybe a primary election or two but just wait when our presidential election is simply decide by New York city, LA, Chicago, Houston and Dallas (and maybe a hand full of other cities).

Who the hell cares what the founding fathers thought? That was in an era when news took a month to get from Boston to Columbia.

[7,052,770]

I will say this much about this debate, few people on this board understand the EC.  Not only did the founders not trust the poeple (there are just too many voters with about 2 brain cells a piece who should do their country a favor and not vote), but they didn't want only the major population centers to determine the presidential election.

Do you honestly think any presidential candidate would pay any attention to Wyoming, the Dakotas,  or the People's Republic of Vermont if their were no EC giving them any real input in the election.  Some might argued they are largely ignored now besides maybe a primary election or two but just wait when our presidential election is simply decide by New York city, LA, Chicago, Houston and Dallas (and maybe a hand full of other cities).

they don't pay attention to them now!
And the media would crucify a candidate who only campaigned in NYC, LA, etc.

[Orser67]

The Constitution was written in a time when many people thought of themselves as citizens of a state first.  Today, I would think the vast majority of Americans think of themselves as Americans first and residents of a state second.  Imo, the vote of each American should be equal, especially if you already have a senate where a resident of Wyoming has about 60 times more representation in the US Senate than does a resident of California.

Also, I think it's important to note that if the Electoral College was changed, parties would be forced to change their policies as well to respond to this change, so the Democrats wouldn't necessarily have an advantage.  Rather, it might force both sides to be slightly more respondent to the people, rather than relying on a gimmicky system to win a majority of electoral votes via winning specific groups in specific states (and again, those specific groups would still have plenty of representation via the US House and Senate).