HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » The electoral college

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 02:30 PM

The electoral college

Before we put this forum to rest, we may want to think about the electoral college.

No, it will not be abolished. Not any time soon.

But there was a lot of talk about the disproportional power of small state. One reason is because each state has two senators, whether it is Wyoming and Vermont with about 600,000 people, or California with 38 million.

It would not have changed the results this time, but I think that we need to change the number of electors to 435, the same as the members of congress.

Thus, the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana each will have 1 vote, instead of 3.

13 replies, 5171 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to question everything (Original post)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 02:42 PM

1. It still requires an amendment to the Constitution...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 12:31 PM

6. Right. Congress can only change the number of EVs by changing the number of House seats

They can't take away the two EVs for the senate seats without an amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 02:43 PM

2. I haven't checked but wouldn't that require a constitutional ammendment?

If so, we should just get one to abolish the E.C..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 02:39 AM

3. You would need 3/4 th's of the state legislatures to agree to make that change

So why would states like Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas agree with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 10:22 AM

4. We really don't know how things would have played out...

 

if both candidates campaigned to win the popular vote instead of the electoral vote (most likely Clinton would have won). Campaigning only happens in a small number of states and the rest of the country is neglected. Now if the EC were done away with small states and smaller cities would be neglected. I live in a smaller area of the US and my area would get almost no attention without the EC. Places of high importance in the EC are not going to vote to get rid of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 11:31 AM

5. I understand this

and this is why I don't think that the EC should be abolished altogether. But I think that it should be tweaked to be more proportionally to the population, as members of the house are apportioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:17 PM

8. Either way you are asking small states to cede more power to the large states

 

RI, MA & CT don't want TX getting more power in an election and MT, SD & AK don't want CA getting more power in an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 09:11 PM

10. true, but in general the reds have more "small" states, so they definitely will not let the EC go, o

 

be changed. that's why i think that blue states really have no choice but to secede.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 10:18 PM

11. They already do. Because they are more populous

and have more representatives in the House.

Otherwise, each state will have one vote and then CA and TX would complain that they should have more weight than the smaller ones.

Or just switch to popular votes - one person one vote - and you know that the red states would object.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 08:41 AM

13. The EC isn't going anywhere anytime soon

 

and the bigger states aren't going to get more representatives then they already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 02:49 PM

7. If I had my way

States would earn EVs by the number of people who voted. 1000 votes would earn 1 EV.

This may help solve the problem of disenfranchising voters if governors know that their state will have very little influence over a national election thus undermining their own federal access to people within government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 10:18 PM

12. I like this idea (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 09:09 PM

9. eliminate the EC, or blue states should just secede. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread