4 ms·

I mean, if he had won the popular vote, then fine, he is the winner. All this is asking is 1 person 1 vote.

by outside1234 7y ago

m0zg 7y ago
This would lead to e.g. Wyoming being run by California though. I'm sure Wyomingites would totally love that.
- outside1234 7y ago
  Wyoming would still have a state legislature - I am not sure I see your point. If you are saying that each person in Wyoming would have 1 vote towards the presidency and each person in California would have 1 vote towards the presidency, then I agree.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    The point is, Wyoming and many other less populated states, would then have very, very limited say in who becomes the head of the executive branch, and therefore holds the veto power over whatever the legislative branch is able to put together whenever they feel like actually doing any work. That's the whole idea: no matter how sparsely populated, each state has at least _some_ say when electing the dude (or dudette) who runs the country, and that say is deliberately disproportionate to its population. Were it up to me, I'd let the smaller states have a larger number of representatives as well. E pluribus unum and all that.
    - jonathankoren 7y ago
      That's how democracy works. If a region wants more say, they should have more people. No one complains that Lost Springs (population 4) has a "very, very limited say in who becomes the head of the executive branch" of Wyoming. It's same really. It's just lines on a map, nothing to do with state or national identity.
  - felipemnoa 7y ago
    >>Wyoming would still have a state legislature - I am not sure I see your point. It means that California would have more influence at the federal level than it does now. And since federal laws apply to all states it means that indirectly California would have more influence on Wyoming.
    - Taniwha 7y ago
      so? California has more people - it should have influence proportional to it's population - remember that in most states (except for Wyoming) electoral college votes are dominated by house seats (which are proportional to population).
      - m0zg 7y ago
        If you want the US to stay whole, that's a big problem. Technically states can secede, or form a separate union if they so desire. That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Technically states can secede, mlor form a separate union if they so desire. Technically, they can't. There is no provision for secession in the US Constitution. Practically, well, the one notable attempt didn't work out, so not that, either. > That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds. Well, you can't do that through coordinated state action. Or even a Constitutional amendment. Maybe two amendments, because the provision prohibiting amendments which alter the equal representation in the Senate isn't itself explicitly protected the same way. Of course, small states can easily block a Constitutional amendment, so that's not going to happen unless they are on board.
        m0zg 7y ago
        >> There is no provision for secession in the US Constitution. There's no provision forbidding secession either, so they technically very much can. All that's not forbidden is allowed.
- jeanperrot 7y ago
  Wyoming gets 3 votes in the electoral college, California gets 55 - I am not sure what point you are making. The net effect of the electoral college is that the president is effectively picked by the voters of a handful of swing states. Wyoming is not one of these swing states. Removing the electoral college would lead to the president being picked by the voters of all states, which seems a lot better.
- jayd16 7y ago
  Another way to look at it is California conservatives and Wyoming liberals would finally have a voice.
  - Taniwha 7y ago
    yes exactly - FPP voting as practiced in the US (at the house seat level right up to state electoral college votes) means that vast numbers of people are disenfranchised
- mikeash 7y ago
  We currently have minority rule at the federal level. Is that better?

I mean, if he had won the popular vote, then fine, he is the winner. All this is asking is 1 person 1 vote.

m0zg 7y ago

This would lead to e.g. Wyoming being run by California though. I'm sure Wyomingites would totally love that.

outside1234 7y ago
Wyoming would still have a state legislature - I am not sure I see your point. If you are saying that each person in Wyoming would have 1 vote towards the presidency and each person in California would have 1 vote towards the presidency, then I agree.
- m0zg 7y ago
  The point is, Wyoming and many other less populated states, would then have very, very limited say in who becomes the head of the executive branch, and therefore holds the veto power over whatever the legislative branch is able to put together whenever they feel like actually doing any work. That's the whole idea: no matter how sparsely populated, each state has at least _some_ say when electing the dude (or dudette) who runs the country, and that say is deliberately disproportionate to its population. Were it up to me, I'd let the smaller states have a larger number of representatives as well. E pluribus unum and all that.
  - jonathankoren 7y ago
    That's how democracy works. If a region wants more say, they should have more people. No one complains that Lost Springs (population 4) has a "very, very limited say in who becomes the head of the executive branch" of Wyoming. It's same really. It's just lines on a map, nothing to do with state or national identity.
- felipemnoa 7y ago
  >>Wyoming would still have a state legislature - I am not sure I see your point. It means that California would have more influence at the federal level than it does now. And since federal laws apply to all states it means that indirectly California would have more influence on Wyoming.
  - Taniwha 7y ago
    so? California has more people - it should have influence proportional to it's population - remember that in most states (except for Wyoming) electoral college votes are dominated by house seats (which are proportional to population).
    - m0zg 7y ago
      If you want the US to stay whole, that's a big problem. Technically states can secede, or form a separate union if they so desire. That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Technically states can secede, mlor form a separate union if they so desire. Technically, they can't. There is no provision for secession in the US Constitution. Practically, well, the one notable attempt didn't work out, so not that, either. > That's also why Senate representation is _NOT_ proportional to population. I suspect that'd be the next thing to be dismantled if whoever is pushing this actually succeeds. Well, you can't do that through coordinated state action. Or even a Constitutional amendment. Maybe two amendments, because the provision prohibiting amendments which alter the equal representation in the Senate isn't itself explicitly protected the same way. Of course, small states can easily block a Constitutional amendment, so that's not going to happen unless they are on board.
        m0zg 7y ago
        >> There is no provision for secession in the US Constitution. There's no provision forbidding secession either, so they technically very much can. All that's not forbidden is allowed.
jeanperrot 7y ago
Wyoming gets 3 votes in the electoral college, California gets 55 - I am not sure what point you are making. The net effect of the electoral college is that the president is effectively picked by the voters of a handful of swing states. Wyoming is not one of these swing states. Removing the electoral college would lead to the president being picked by the voters of all states, which seems a lot better.
jayd16 7y ago
Another way to look at it is California conservatives and Wyoming liberals would finally have a voice.
- Taniwha 7y ago
  yes exactly - FPP voting as practiced in the US (at the house seat level right up to state electoral college votes) means that vast numbers of people are disenfranchised
mikeash 7y ago
We currently have minority rule at the federal level. Is that better?