One State=One Vote

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

You're going around in circles here. Of course the electoral college is what the constitution dictates. The popular vote is irrelevant, constitutionally speaking.

This is a 2-way street. If you'd like to change the constitution to give each state equal power in the electoral college, then surely I can make an argument to completely eliminate the Electoral College entirely.

Not that I'm sure I want to do that, but at the very least, I support fair allocation of the electors based on the population of the states.