4 ms·

> 83 percent favor strong net neutrality rules for broadband, and more than 60 percent want stronger privacy laws. No one in my largest circle is against net n

by slacka 8y ago

> 83 percent favor strong net neutrality rules for broadband, and more than 60 percent want stronger privacy laws. No one in my largest circle is against net neutrality. Yet here we are. By fixing the number of Reps. at 435, we have ended up in a situation where you can win the Electoral College with 23% of the population.[1] The Wyoming Rule would fix the underrepresentation in populated states and the electoral issue.[2] [1] https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-pres... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule

sandov 8y ago
Being in favor of net neutrality != being in favor of net neutrality regulations
gnicholas 8y ago
> The Wyoming Rule would fix the underrepresentation in populated states and the electoral issue. How would this fix the electoral issue (I assume you're referring to the Electoral College)? From the wikipedia page, it appears only to propose changing the makeup of the House of Representatives.
- kingbirdy 8y ago
  Each state receives an amount of electoral college voters equal to how many congressional representatives it has. So the Wyoming Rule means states with a disproportionate population/elector ratio would no longer exist - all states would have a roughly equal ratio.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    Each state still gets two electoral votes for its Senators, so small states still have an advantage with the Wyoming Rule, but less of one than they have now.
    - slacka 8y ago
      You 3 are splitting hairs. Yes, it's not perfect, but would be better than the current situation.
jessaustin 8y ago
Constitutional amendments are ratified using largely the same rules that favor small states. Small states are not about to ratify amendments that would reduce their own political power. Changing federal statutes is easier than changing the Constitution, so if there were a way to get to e.g. a 1000-member House that might make a difference. Someone would have to be asleep at the switch for that to pass, however. Besides, there are only seven single-representative states, some of which would get two representatives if the size of the House were doubled, so this would have a limited electoral effect anyway. Californians who really worry about this should be talking about secession.
- gumby 8y ago
  The number of representatives is simply set by law so congress could, say, triple the number of representatives. The current size was set 90 years ago when there were fewer states and the dynamics were different.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The number of representatives is simply set by law so congress could, say, triple the number of representatives. Yes, members of Congress could vote to decrease the power of each individual member of Congress to undo the effect of their previous vote to assure that power would increase over time, but it'd take native popular pressure to get them to do so.
    - gumby 8y ago
      By international comparison the US has a pretty small number of reps/inhabitant. Both houses of congress in supermajority control of a party not holding the presidency could do it. Also more reps means more leadership posts, more committees and more people on those committees all spreading those sweet sweet press ops around. I could see it happening. The logistics of fitting people in the Capitol building might be tough. There are advantages to a smaller legislature (more people means more institutional politics)
michaelbuckbee 8y ago
I feel bad you're being downvoted because what you're proposing is one of the structural changes that could potentially help remedy the situation (though I'd probably put Gerrymandering first).

by slacka 8y ago

sandov 8y ago

Being in favor of net neutrality != being in favor of net neutrality regulations

gnicholas 8y ago

> The Wyoming Rule would fix the underrepresentation in populated states and the electoral issue. How would this fix the electoral issue (I assume you're referring to the Electoral College)? From the wikipedia page, it appears only to propose changing the makeup of the House of Representatives.

kingbirdy 8y ago
Each state receives an amount of electoral college voters equal to how many congressional representatives it has. So the Wyoming Rule means states with a disproportionate population/elector ratio would no longer exist - all states would have a roughly equal ratio.
- pdonis 8y ago
  Each state still gets two electoral votes for its Senators, so small states still have an advantage with the Wyoming Rule, but less of one than they have now.
  - slacka 8y ago
    You 3 are splitting hairs. Yes, it's not perfect, but would be better than the current situation.

jessaustin 8y ago

Constitutional amendments are ratified using largely the same rules that favor small states. Small states are not about to ratify amendments that would reduce their own political power. Changing federal statutes is easier than changing the Constitution, so if there were a way to get to e.g. a 1000-member House that might make a difference. Someone would have to be asleep at the switch for that to pass, however. Besides, there are only seven single-representative states, some of which would get two representatives if the size of the House were doubled, so this would have a limited electoral effect anyway. Californians who really worry about this should be talking about secession.

gumby 8y ago
The number of representatives is simply set by law so congress could, say, triple the number of representatives. The current size was set 90 years ago when there were fewer states and the dynamics were different.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The number of representatives is simply set by law so congress could, say, triple the number of representatives. Yes, members of Congress could vote to decrease the power of each individual member of Congress to undo the effect of their previous vote to assure that power would increase over time, but it'd take native popular pressure to get them to do so.
  - gumby 8y ago
    By international comparison the US has a pretty small number of reps/inhabitant. Both houses of congress in supermajority control of a party not holding the presidency could do it. Also more reps means more leadership posts, more committees and more people on those committees all spreading those sweet sweet press ops around. I could see it happening. The logistics of fitting people in the Capitol building might be tough. There are advantages to a smaller legislature (more people means more institutional politics)

michaelbuckbee 8y ago

I feel bad you're being downvoted because what you're proposing is one of the structural changes that could potentially help remedy the situation (though I'd probably put Gerrymandering first).