One State=One Vote

[rockhound]

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

[rockhound]

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

[rockhound]

It seems that the popular press, and even election discussion forums like this, when discussing changes to the electoral system start with a presumption that popular vote needs to somehow be weighed more.

I think just the opposite.  The nation is a collection of states.  The states chose to join the union, and in an act of compromise, the small states agreed to cede some power to the larger ones in the house of representatives.  But other than that, and the related electoral votes, each state is an equal partner in the Union.   When it comes time to pick the president, each state chooses its electors in the way it sees fit.  Currently, all states use a popular vote method, but there is no reason that will always be the case.

In any event, with the significant influence a few large states have (it now takes just 11 to win the presidency), I believe real consideration should be given to limiting the power of states like California.  One state=one vote (similar to the UN) would make sense for the selection of President, though I'd still keep the house of representatives based on population.

how very generous of you.

Anyway, absolutely crazy...talk about a disproportionate advantage for conservative rural states.

I don't understand this argument.  How does the current system not provide a disproportionate advantage to the large urban states?

large urban states also have more people, in case you haven't noticed.

You missed the constitutional discussion in my op then.  The union is made up of states, not people.  It is the states the choose the president.

[rockhound]

If the president had less power like a head of a council of states rather than holding executive power I think this would work. But then the United States wouldn't be a true country but more of a collective association of countries like the EU.

Presidential power has far exceeded what the constitution deemed appropriate.  It is time to start giving power back to the states, as well as the congress.

Arguing in favor of a popular vote tally, is purely a big government, less states rights argument.  It is solely a position of the left.

The argument for each state getting one vote is the much stronger one based on constitutional history.   I don't think the founders envisioned a state like California getting 18 times the voting power of smaller states, particularly in choosing a chief executive with the power that it has today.

Sites like the Atlas, that list popular vote totals, but not state totals, perpetuate the myth that somehow state count is irrelevant.  It is not--it is just as important as popular vote in having any discussion of results.

Perhaps though, the compromise is to limit states to no more than 15 EV (10x the smallest state), but even that, in my mind misses the point that the country is a collection of states.   It is, after all the United STATES of America, not the United Peoples Republic of America.

[rockhound]

I don't like the idea that states represent people.  People like to talk about New York and California as a place where there are only democrats and Idaho and Oklahoma as places where there are only republicans, but every 4 years the people who support the opposing party in those states go out to vote.  Their votes never matter because their candidate loses in a landslide, but they vote anyway.  That is serious dedication, and it would be much better if our electoral system didn't implicitly disenfranchise those voters in every election.

That supports the one state = on vote argument.   States are really different entities, each with their own issues and problems.