4 ms·

This Team Thinks They Can Fix the Electoral College by 2024

7 points by car 4y ago

matt321 4y ago
doesn't need fixing. People in California should not have disproportionate control over people in Wyoming due to their population.
- allears 4y ago
  Doesn't work that way. Wyoming has as much power in the Senate as California, even though it's got a lot fewer people. So, effectively, a single Wyoming voter has a lot more power than a single California voter. In a true democracy, one person's vote would count just as much as another's. That's not the way it works now.
- AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
  > People in California should not have disproportionate control over people in Wyoming due to their population. California: * 1 elector per 721,166 people. * 1 senator per 19,832,064 people. Wyoming: * 1 elector per 194,078 people. * 1 senator per 291,116 people. I think you meant people in Wyoming have disproportionate control over people in California. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/electoral-votes-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/electoral-v...
- nh23423fefe 4y ago
  Why are you aggregating people at the state level?
  - bediger4000 4y ago
    To give rural, conservative voters more voting power. It's pretty much that simple, and it's been that way since the constitution was ratified.
    - car 4y ago
      This is a myth, explained in more detail here [0]. [0]https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.1 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.1
    - Tagbert 4y ago
      So… to undermine one-person-one-vote and give extra power to some people?
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
First: This assumes that the EC needs fixing. That's... not a universally held belief. And those who don't share that belief won't agree that this is actually a fix. Second: Are you trying to create another "alternate slates of electors" situation? Because this is likely to do so. Third: This is going to get thrown to a court test. It would be really nice if that court test were before a presidential election was at stake. Unfortunately, the courts do not like "hypothetical" suits. And the candidates need to know before the election. If you're campaigning for the total popular vote, you'd campaign differently than if you were campaigning to win certain states. Fourth: To my inexpert eye, it looks like there's no additional adoptation since 2020. Oh, yeah: (2020).
quantified 4y ago
This team is on drugs if it thinks that it can convince the leadership that's been banking on population-minority/electoral-majority to go along with this. All the recent vote-handling adjustments lately to steer a few thousand here and there in battleground states would be at risk. If they succeed at fixing it, mind you, I'll happily pay for whatever they're taking.

7 points by car 4y ago

doesn't need fixing. People in California should not have disproportionate control over people in Wyoming due to their population.

allears 4y ago
Doesn't work that way. Wyoming has as much power in the Senate as California, even though it's got a lot fewer people. So, effectively, a single Wyoming voter has a lot more power than a single California voter. In a true democracy, one person's vote would count just as much as another's. That's not the way it works now.
AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
> People in California should not have disproportionate control over people in Wyoming due to their population. California: * 1 elector per 721,166 people. * 1 senator per 19,832,064 people. Wyoming: * 1 elector per 194,078 people. * 1 senator per 291,116 people. I think you meant people in Wyoming have disproportionate control over people in California. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/electoral-votes-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/electoral-v...
nh23423fefe 4y ago
Why are you aggregating people at the state level?
- bediger4000 4y ago
  To give rural, conservative voters more voting power. It's pretty much that simple, and it's been that way since the constitution was ratified.
  - car 4y ago
    This is a myth, explained in more detail here [0]. [0]https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.1 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.1
  - Tagbert 4y ago
    So… to undermine one-person-one-vote and give extra power to some people?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

First: This assumes that the EC needs fixing. That's... not a universally held belief. And those who don't share that belief won't agree that this is actually a fix. Second: Are you trying to create another "alternate slates of electors" situation? Because this is likely to do so. Third: This is going to get thrown to a court test. It would be really nice if that court test were before a presidential election was at stake. Unfortunately, the courts do not like "hypothetical" suits. And the candidates need to know before the election. If you're campaigning for the total popular vote, you'd campaign differently than if you were campaigning to win certain states. Fourth: To my inexpert eye, it looks like there's no additional adoptation since 2020. Oh, yeah: (2020).

quantified 4y ago

This team is on drugs if it thinks that it can convince the leadership that's been banking on population-minority/electoral-majority to go along with this. All the recent vote-handling adjustments lately to steer a few thousand here and there in battleground states would be at risk. If they succeed at fixing it, mind you, I'll happily pay for whatever they're taking.