Lifting the 435 seat limit on the size of the U.S. House would make the Electoral College fairer.

[Ken Burch]

And it can be done without going through the process of amending the Constitution(as we would have to do to abolish the EC).

The 435 seat cap on the size of the House was established by statute in 1911(The Apportionment Act of 1911) at a time when the U.S. population was less than half of what it is now.

This has led to a massive imbalance in representation in the House(the chamber that is supposed to offer representation by population).

And since each state's Electoral College representation is based on the combined size of its House and Senate delegations), the act has skewed the Electoral College results severely.

If we were to repeal the Apportionment Act, OR to amend it to establish congressional representation on the basis of 1 seat for every 600,000 people(which would leave the existing representation of the smallest states intact), the size of the House would grow from 435 seats to 531 seats-this would increase the Electoral College from 538 seats to 634...creating a much more representational House(a 96 seat increase would be manageable) and an Electoral College in which "wrong winner" elections would be much more unlikely.

It's achievable in a way that Electoral College abolition, at this point, is not.

[shraby]

1. I've thought about that too. Right now it probably can't be done because of the makeup of

congress, but it should be a doable thing.

[Ken Burch]

2. We should have it in the platform and require all congressional candidates to pledge to support it.

And it's possible we could go to federal court and get the Apportionment Act thrown out as unconstitutional(since the constitutional function of the U.S. House is supposed to be to provide representation by population and the size limit arbitrarily imposed by the Act prevents the House from fulfilling that role).

[shraby]

3. You have something there. Maybe the ACLU could be persuaded? If not, a high profile

lawyer might be able to get it in front of the Supremes.

[Ken Burch]

4. AND...we could argue an "original intent" case.

Which could win some votes from the Alito-Roberts wing of the Court.

[etherealtruth]

5. If we are to stick with our current system it is the right thing to do ...

It would probably be relatively representative for up to 20 years (if population growth/ changes remain relatively stable).

The problem with this (aside from the likelihood of Republicans voting for something fair that would likely decimate their "power&quot is the fact that this would need to be changed as populations change ... since it hasn't been addressed in well over a hundred years this does not seem to be something politicians or the public seeks to address.

Our current system is deeply flawed and is certainly not representative of the citizens of this country.

[Adrahil]

6. Why would the Republicans do that?

The last two Republican Presidents got into office while losing the popular vote. This lat time, by nearly 3 million votes!!! What on Earth would be their motivation to change the system that did that for them? They can rule the country as a minority political party.

[Ken Burch]

15. We can use this as a way of mobilizing opposition to them and getting them out.

Having the idea out there will increase turnout-and ANY increase in turnout means we gain seats.

By contrast, until we do this, there's next to nothing we can do about voter suppression-ending that is a lost cause under the existing arrangements.

[Adrahil]

29. I sure hope so. The pessimist in me says it's too late. They've already stacked the deck....

... while we argued about who was "progressive" enough.

[Lurks Often]

7. You'd probably see bipartisan opposition in Congress

The members of Congress from the smaller states will likely unite in opposition. Do you really think that the least populous 21 states will allow themselves to be made basically irrelevant because California has more people then all of them combined?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

[TDale313]

17. something has to be done

We Californians have gotten very close to no taxation without representation territory. The fact that we do have so many more people means we should have a large say. Our votes and representation are so watered down now that the 38 million who live here have virtually no say on a federal level.

[Lurks Often]

18. This is exactly why this country was set up the way it was

to prevent any single state (regardless of party) from having too much influence.

[rufus dog]

21. the Country was set up to provide equal representation and two Senators per state

Then the limit was put on in the early 1900's. So now with 100 years of migration we have the largest state getting screwed. If CA was equally represented as WYO then we would have over 3x more representatives.

[Lurks Often]

58. It was also set up so that no one state had more influence then others

The smaller states, Democratic & Republican, will never allow legislation to pass that will give CA, NY, TX, FL & IL more influence in elections.

[Bettie]

116. The Senate is the body that is to be equally representative of all states

the house should be allocated based on population and the base number or range should be the same in every state.

That means that in the house, yes, California, NY, Texas, FL, and IL would have more say, because they have more people.

And I say that as a resident of a small population state.

Right now, a bunch of red states with very little population dictate the agenda. That is wrong.

[LisiFFXV]

117. No, it's why the senate exists

Read the federalist papers. The senate exists so as to assure small states an equal voice with large states. The house was intended to reflect the aggregate will of the people.

IMO, the founders were right to fear a tyranny of the majority situation. (Trump has seen their worst fears realized.) Laypeople just don't have what it takes to make proper decisions of this magnitude. The senate never should have gone to direct election by the people; nor should the presidency have.... and the house never should have been allowed to be capped at such a hugely disproportional level.

[eniwetok]

19. should california threaten secession to abolish the EC?

I think it's the only way to force change on a reformproof system. Discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028380818

[NobodyHere]

35. No they shouldn't

They have no cards to play

[eniwetok]

53. I beg to differ...

California has plenty of cards to play in this game of chicken. First they have the MORAL cause. They would not be threatening secession for the immoral cause of slavery. They are the largest population state in the nation and its citizens are treated poorly in our antidemocratic system. Any citizen in CA has a 1/70 size the vote for the Senate than any citizen in WY... and 1/3 the size of a vote for president. They contribute more in taxes than they get back from Washington (about 87% less). Many states would suffer without California transferring wealth to them. They have a massive economy, a coast with ports, etc. I suspect that once CA stood up for democratic principles people in other large population states might also realize they're not treated well in our system.

The fact is our system is antidemocratic and virtually reformproof. Much of it was designed to protect slavery. Not ONE of the core antidemocratic features of our system has ever been reformed because the small population states have a complete veto over the process. States with a mere 18% of the US population get 52% of the seats in the Senate and states with 4% can block any amendment. It will take a constitutional crisis to ever force this system to enact reforms.

[NobodyHere]

68. They have no chance of successfully seceding.

The US military would run rampant and destroy the place and California knows it. The republicans wouldn't let them secede and perhaps more importantly the democrats wouldn't let them secede.

The threat of seceding is empty.

[eniwetok]

72. I don't agree that this would lead to war...

The South seceded for immoral reasons and it was the South that started hostilities.

Demanding democratic reform is not immoral and it would rip the nation apart if CA were invaded.

I can imagine a 50-100 year campaign to try and reform our system... and chances are it would fail because states with just 4% of the population can thwart and reform. I can't think of any other way to reform an antidemocratic and reformproof system. Can you? And let's remember that when the Articles Of Confederation were failing... it also could not be reformed because it took unanimous consent. So the Framers dumped the system and started from scratch.

[NobodyHere]

73. Nobody cares about the "moral" argument

If the Federal government let one state secede, then what's to prevent other states from doing the same because they have some grievance?

To the Federal government it's about maintaining power, just like it was in 1861.

[eniwetok]

74. No, YOU don't care about the moral argument...

And your suggestions for reforming an antidemocratic and reformproof system are?

Or are Dems just to be victims of the system?

[NobodyHere]

77. I don't think the system is going to be changed anytime soon

But that doesn't mean California has any chance at succeeding at seceding.

Maybe Democrats should change their game plan so that they aren't the victims, like in 2008.

[KittyWampus]

109. The fact is, a Republican living in Russia is behind the CalExit plan.

So it's pretty clearly an astroturf idea.

I considered it briefly until I learned who was behind the push.

[eniwetok]

112. strawman!

I've seen posts here at DU proposing CA secession 12 years ago.

So your saying that an idea suddenly has no merit if someone you may not like agrees with it?

[treestar]

66. Why would they be basically irrelevant?

Vis a vis the federal government, we are each one person.

Who puts their state first to that extent any more? The colonies have long been folded into the union and the one attempt to put state rights ahead of union was severely rebuffed over 150 years ago.

[Lurks Often]

78. Because CA as well as the other half dozen most popular states

would determine the outcome of every national election.

CT, RI & MA (to name a few) would not want TX to have more influence and WY, ND & SD don't want CA & NY having more influence.

[treestar]

79. Why do people say that?

If it was a direct election, one man, one vote, "California" would not decide. Each person in the nation would have an equal vote. It is the EC that makes the decision be by state. It's not 1789 any more.

[Lurks Often]

88. Then amend the Consitution and get 1 person and 1 vote

[sarah FAILIN]

94. the limit still needs to be lifted to allow them equal representation

As it is now, the California citizens do not get equal representation in matters of common every day government business.

[Lurks Often]

95. It's not going to happen anytime soon.

[sarah FAILIN]

96. It may not but it needs to happen

This is about more than the EC

[treestar]

104. Neither was the vote for women when it was first conceived

People back then did have longer attention spans I suppose. This is worth starting even if we don't live to see the benefit. If Donald is a Disaster, it might well wake people up. That's why we should harp on it, whenever he does something wrong - if we had a normal system where the people chose the President, such and such would not have happened.

[treestar]

103. I think it should be tried

the EC is deplorable. We should have figured it out by now. Maybe Disaster Donald will finally be the case where people wake up and realize it could have been avoided.

[MineralMan]

8. Great idea. Impossible in this congress.

We need to get majorities in both houses to do anything like that. 2018 is a good place to start.

[Ken Burch]

14. Proposing this would be a WAY to help get Congress back.

We can mobilize support BY spreading this idea.

We could call it "The Representative Democracy Act".

[eniwetok]

20. if you want democracy... then the entire system needs reform

We can't have a true representative democracy as long as we have state suffrage where the 600k people in WY have an equal voice with the 35 million in CA. Our entire system is riddled with this antidemocratic nonsense... and if Dems can't finally stand up for democratic principles, no one will.

[Horse with no Name]

9. this is the best plan here

and the most doable.

It will have to wait until we have some control back....but I absolutely think that every vote needs to count.

[Horse with no Name]

10. and if we don't do that

then the larger states need to revolt on paying more taxes than the smaller states.

[eniwetok]

23. the problem isn't taxes... it's representation

In our system it's the people in large population states who are screwed... not because they pay more taxes (though they may be donor states and not get back what they send to Washington) but because individual citizens are deprived equal representation with those in small states... and whenever votes aren't weighed the same, there's a possibility for antidemocratic government as election 2016 again proved.

[Horse with no Name]

64. I understand

but if there isn't any interest in giving those states a bigger voice because they represent more people--then the citizens of those states should not finance the smaller states with the larger voice.
Let them keep their money to invest in the people in THEIR state.

[eniwetok]

65. this is why we need a constitutional crisis...

Under the current rules... reform is impossible and yet if there's no reform we'll continue to have more illegitimate presidents... and demographics will make the system more and more antidemocratic. Which is why the only way I can see to force reform is to have a state like CA threaten secession until democratic reforms are enacted... and I suspect other large population states would join in.

But if even liberal Dems can't critique and challenge the current system to think in terms of how people are represented instead of states... then they deserve what they get.

But the nation doesn't.

[Ken Burch]

13. But we can use the idea to GAIN support and mobilize voters.

It's an end AND a means.

[octoberlib]

11. British parliament has 650 members, population of the UK

is about 64 million. Pop. of US is 319 million as of 2014. Yes, we need more representatives but I cant see current members giving up their power

[Turn CO Blue]

12. I've read that the House should have more than 1000 members by now to be fair. n/t

[eniwetok]

16. Dems Are Victims Of A Defective System...

There is NO way to salvage the EC. If all it can do is ratify the popular vote then it's not needed. If it can overturn the popular vote, then is should not be tolerated.

If we can't abolish the EC even when it has given us the Bush and Trump Juntas, then that proves our system is virtually reform proof AND WE NEED TO FINALLY START DISCUSSING HOW TO REFORM IT.

But it's pretty clear not even liberal Dems have it in them to challenge the system. In the end they'll grin and bear it no mater how many times they're shafted.

[Amimnoch]

22. Has the enumeration been considered every 10 years?

If not, seems to me there's a case to be made to be brought to the Supreme court that congress is not acting in good faith with article 1.

[Crash2Parties]

24. *Why* would the GOP controlled House want to do this?

There are many ways to solve the problem - so far none are practical to implement in the current environment (or from most indications, any environment within the next decade).

[TexasBushwhacker]

25. Anything that isn't 1 person 1 vote is inherently unfair

It discourages the voters of the less popular party, ie the Democrats in Red states and the Republicans in Blue states. The Electoral Votes are awarded regardless of voter turnout. Turnout could be great in Texas and abysmal in California, but CA would still get 55 EVs to Tx's 38. We should be encouraging voter participation, not discouraging it.

[eniwetok]

26. one person one vote is meaningless unless....

One person one vote is meaningless if not all votes weigh the same in terms of representation. And we'll never have civic equality in the vote as long as we have state suffrage which is the source of ALL the antidemocratic features in our federal system. In contrast states MUST have Civic Equality in the vote.

[treestar]

67. Exactly

There is no reason in modern times to think we would be ruled by the high population states.

That is a concern of 18th and 19th century people.

[TexasBushwhacker]

70. The country should be ruled

by people who get their asses to the polls and vote.

[LisiFFXV]

118. It is unfair but right and proper

The founders feared a tyranny of the majority situation. A direct democracy leads to the worst kind of tyranny because it is the hardest kind of tyranny for the minority to overcome.

[TexasBushwhacker]

119. Talk to me again about tyranny

When the Electoral College was created and the decision was made that all states would have at least one representative in the House, the state with the largest population, Virginia, was roughly 20 times bigger than the state with the smallest, Kentucky. The spread between California and Wyoming is by a factor of about 65 and it's getting worse.

Again, there is the problem of states getting to use all of their Electoral Votes no matter how many voters actually cast ballots.

[emulatorloo]

27. Good idea, Ken! Now we just gotta figure out the political roadmap.

Thanks for coming up with this.

[CK_John]

28. Why? Every house district represents 710,000 plus 2 senator.

The 2 extra seats doesn't skew the per population count.

[dsc]

40. two reasons

one, several states are actually smaller than 710k but still get one rep, two, having more members of Congress lessens the impact of those extra two ev the senators provide. Right now those 2 senators per state are close to 20% of the total ec vote. If Congress is expanded they drop to around 15%

[Humanist_Activist]

57. That ratio has more than tripled since 1911, what happens...

when a House district represents more than a million people, or 2 million people.

Right now we have states that used to have several representatives, now being reduced to just a handful representative, with no corresponding population loss. At what point do we start calling the House of Representatives the Second Senate?

[leanforward]

30. What is the back story on the Apportionment Act?

Likewise, did not the House decide not to reapportion after the 1920 census. More recently, there was a consideration of adding two additional seats. One would be for a DC representative, and the other seat would have gone to Utah.

A member of the loyal American opposition. A loyal american does not cozy up to the Russians.

[yallerdawg]

31. How would this end gerrymandering?

Isn't state legislature control of Congressional districting the real problem?

On the other hand, not a problem in Blue States.

[leanforward]

33. Good question.

I'll have to visit that idea. Education dive. I'm sure as we discuss this, there is someone out there that will come up with a scenario on how we might get it done. I might be the court system.

[Freddie]

41. Would make it more difficult at least

With 2x as many congressional districts.

[UTUSN]

32. Sorry (not) but no. The EC needs to go, among many other things.

[Ken Burch]

36. It's not likely the EC will ever be abolished.

No way to ever get a two-thirds majority for it among the state legislatures.

This, by contrast, is achievable.

[UTUSN]

37. I know you're good-hearted. I'm at a point I have no hope/expectations.

[milestogo]

34. I think one representative represents about 700,000 people.

Its very difficult for a relatively unknown candidate to raise enough money to reach that many people, even by mail. And if you are dealing with more than one television media market, its pretty much impossible.

[brooklynite]

38. So, all we need to do is get control of the House and Senate...

...let us know when that happens.

[Gothmog]

39. I favor the interstate treaty/compact for the National popular vote

If states with 270 electoral votes sign this treaty then the winner of the popular vote will always be POTUS http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ I have read up on this issue and this type of agreement among the states is enforceable and will work

The nice thing is that the GOP in congress cannot block it and there is no need to amend the US Constitution

[Grey Lemercier]

45. That will be found unconstitutional under the Compact Clause unfortunately

[Gothmog]

59. Really?

Several states have already adopted this. I have read the analysis of this law and your claim is amusing but wrong

[Grey Lemercier]

75. states cannot enter into binding compacts that have a national impact without approval of Congress

The minute it goes into effect, and there are swing or red states linked to a "blue wall" you will have hundreds of Rethug lawsuits filed. There are many other clauses and article of the constitution opponents can and will use too. I have read the "pro" arguments, and I have little hope they will be upheld. The SCOTUS will be at least 5-4 RW, possibly 6-3, even 7-2 RW by then (especially if Ginsberg doesnt last until 2020 or Shitgibbon is re-elected.

The only way to fix the EC is too expand the House size, and thus the number of EV's, then fairly parcel them out, so the bigger states like CA don't get ratfucked like they do now. It will never be amended away, it only takes 13 states to block it (let alone the 75% of Congress needed to pass it).

Finally, there simply will never be enough red or swing states sign onto what is now a completely Blue Wall that will get it over 270 EV's and thus go into effect.

I am realist, just because I think something horrid (which I do in terms of the EC, it is an abomination) doesnt mean I am going to waste time and uber valuable political capital on pie-in-the-sky wishes and wantings that will never yield any fruitfulness.

[Gothmog]

80. You are totally wrong

i love it when laypersons try to understand legal concepts. Read the case law cited.

[Gothmog]

82. You do understand that the rather silly proposal advanced in the OP need congressional approval

Your analysis is rather amusing the OP advances are rather sad and unworkable idea of increasing the number of members in the house which requires the GOP to vote to give up their advantage.

Thank you for the laughs

[Grey Lemercier]

84. passing an new Act (when and if we get control back) is MUCH easier than an Amendment to the

Constitution (needed to do away with the EC) and MUCH easier than getting swing and red states to sign onto a Blue Wall for the National Compact (even if it did pass constitutional muster).

I am glad you find viable options the horrific state that the Democratic party finds itself long-gamed into EC-wise and House representation-wise amusing and silly.

[Gothmog]

87. And the National Popular Vote requires neither

11 states with 165 electoral votes have already signed this compact.

[Grey Lemercier]

90. 270 EV's will never sign onto it, see my other posts

[Gothmog]

86. Here is a simplistic explanation that even laypersons should understand

[Grey Lemercier]

89. I am not changing my mind, and those examples of Compacts did NOT have national ramifications

Furthermore, The Compact will never happen, you will never get 270 EV's worth of states to sign onto a Blue Wall (every state so far is a Blue state, plus the DoC.

I am sorry, but we are just going to have to agree to disagree, and I truly hope I am the one who is wrong, but I unfortunately like my chances better.

[Gothmog]

91. I love it when laypersons attempt to understand legal concepts

Here is some more facts for you to ignore or pretend do not exist

[treestar]

105. Very good, that is convincing

Nothing in the Constitution requires the winner-take-all method. Obviously a couple of states have modified that - Maine and Nebraska.

[Gothmog]

106. 11 states with 165 electoral votes have already signed on to this plan

[eniwetok]

113. sure, the easy states signed on...

And maybe the Trump Junta will inspire more. I support the idea but the idea this will work is unlikely. Besides the constitutional challenges, something you've not convinced me will not occur... as soon as a state's EC votes go to someone that state voted against there will be hell to pay. Then what? States will be suing other states in the compact?

In the end it's a distraction from the debate we NEED to have... whether we can continue to live with an antidemocratic system that is incapable of providing morally legitimate government.

[Gothmog]

115. The only alternatives offerred involve getting Congressional republicans to agree

There is no way that congressional republicans would support the amusing proposal described in the OP. Such proposal would require that the House flip control and that the Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate.

I live in the real world and the only proposal that has a chance is the National Popular Vote

[eniwetok]

54. Grey is correct about the compact clause

If the Compact were ever to reach 270, it would still need to be approved by Congress under its Art 1 powers

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


And even if passed as soon as a state voted against its own population it would fall apart.

The Compact is clever but a distraction from the debate we must have about the antidemocratic and reform proof nature of our system.

[Gothmog]

60. Read the case law

I had looked at this a while back. Here is a simplistic explanation for the laypersons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Supporters believe the compact is legal under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the plenary power of the states to appoint their electors in any manner they see fit: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…" Proponents of this position include law professor Jamie Raskin (now U.S. Congressman-elect for Maryland's 8th congressional district), who, as a state legislator, co-sponsored the first NPVIC bill to be signed into law, and law professors Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar, who were the compact's original proponents.[38]

A 2008 assessment by law school student David Gringer suggested that the NPVIC could potentially violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but the U.S. Department of Justice in 2012 precleared California's entry into the compact under Section 5 of the Act, concluding that the compact had no adverse impact on California's racial minority voters.[39][40] FairVote's Rob Richie says that the NPVIC "treats all voters equally."[41]

Gringer also assailed the NPVIC as "an end-run around the constitutional amendment process." Raskin has responded: "the term 'end run' has no known constitutional or legal meaning. More to the point, to the extent that we follow its meaning in real usage, the 'end run' is a perfectly lawful play."[42] Raskin argues that the adoption of the term "end run" by the compact's opponents is a tacit acknowledgment of the plan's legality.

Ian Drake, an assistant professor of Political Science and another critic of the compact, has argued that the constitution both requires and prohibits Congressional approval of the compact. In Drake's view, only a constitutional amendment could make the compact valid.[43] Authors Michael Brody,[44] Jennifer Hendricks,[45] and Bradley Turflinger[46] have examined the compact and concluded that the NPVIC, if successfully enacted, would pass constitutional muster. Brody has put forth a unique theory that the legality of the NPVIC could potentially hinge on the notion that faithless electors are not necessarily obligated to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.[47]

It is possible that Congress would have to approve the NPVIC before it could go into effect. Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power." However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and in several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.[48] Every Vote Equal argues that the compact could never encroach upon federal power since the Constitution explicitly gives the power of casting electoral votes to the states, not the federal government. Derek Muller argues that the NPVIC would nonetheless affect the federal system in such a way that it would require Congressional approval,[49] while Ian Drake argues that Congress is actually prohibited under the Constitution from granting approval to the NPVIC.[43] NPVIC supporters dispute this conclusion and state they plan to seek congressional approval if the compact is approved by a sufficient number of states.[50]

[eniwetok]

61. I'm well aware of the arguments... and I support the Compact

But the idea that its legality won't be challenged by the GOP that knows the EC clearly has a GOP bias or that a state could remain in the Compact if it votes against it's own voters... is naive. My other concern is it distracts from a needed debate about how antidemocratic our federal system is... and how it's making a mockery of the very concept of self-government.

[Gothmog]

62. California and several states with good AGs have adopted this compact

These AGs looked at this issue and the law was adopoted anyway. Anyone can challenge a law but the case does not support such a challenge

[eniwetok]

69. you haven't made the case

You haven't made the case that the Compact immune to a constitutional challenge.

I don't blame these states for trying something to bypass a defect in the system but the idea the Compact will hold up against a challenge or a state instructing its electors to vote against how its people voted is... as I've said, naive.

[Gothmog]

81. Read the case law cited or have a lawyer read it and explain it to you.

What is really amusing is that the rather silly proposal made in the OP has zero chance of passage in that this requires republicans in congress to do away the advantage they have in the Electoral college.

[Freddie]

42. The Wyoming Rule

Would be a good start. Take the lowest populated state (Wyoming) which has est 400000 people. They get 1 rep. In all other states, 1 rep per 400000 people. Re-adjust every 10 years.
The artificial limit to the size of Congress was done in the run-up to Prohibition. Big cities were teeming with recent immigrants, most of whom were from countries (Ireland, Italy, Eastern Europe) with "drinking" cultures who would oppose Prohibition. The cap on Congressional seats was directly intended to limit the power and influence of big cities and their immigrant populations. Sound familiar? The politics of getting Prohibition passed were just as dirty as anything happening today and an early example of minority interests manipulating the system to impose these will on the majority.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. I would say keep the ratio static, Wyoming rounded down to nearest 100000 and the....

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2017, 10:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Add reps as necessary every census.

[Bucky]

49. I don't think a legislative body of 1200 members could ever be functional

at least not the way our Congress is supposed to function. Maybe a parliamentary body could do that, but even then 1200 is a lot of people.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. If that's true then the democratic solutions would be breaking up the country...

into smaller, more manageable states, or weakening the Federal government beyond even EU levels. Its either that, or abandon representative democracy all together, which is the road we are on now.

[Hamlette]

44. we could sue, saying it is no longer one man one vote using Wyoming as our example.

they are grossly over represented in Congress their house seat represents 584,153 while a California representative represents 732,075

[Grey Lemercier]

46. A Wyoming EV is worth 3.76 times more than a California EV

I have been pushing the increase of the House size for years, especially because dilution of House voting power for the big states, and always warned about the EC too. My suggestion is at least 1001 members. Even the Wyoming Rule (see a post above) is far too little. In 1913, when the number was set at 435 the US had 97 million people. We have around 325% more now which yields over 1400 House members if we kept to that ratio. I say set the number to ensure one house seat to every 300,000 people. Even the 1000 plus House members that ratio yields is literally TEN times more people (so 10 times less representative) than the 30,000 people to every House member the USA started out at.

This HAS to be a HUGE central plank of the party or we are going to get fucked even worse as time rolls on and urban drift "kettles" our voting power evermore.

[Grey Lemercier]

47. THIS!!!!!!! ....I have been screaming this for years, long before I joined this board

Here is a previous post I did on this subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028342606

The Democratic Party has been Constitutionally "kettled", there is really only one doable solution

Kettling (also known as containment or corralling) is a tactic for controlling large groups. You move to subdue a crowd by breaking it up and moving it into a contained limited area(s). This has occurred at both US House levels, and thus at Electoral College levels. Giant states like California, New York, etc are now cut off from numerically equal representation, they have become impotent cul-de-sacs. Take away all (not just Clinton's) of California's POTUS votes, Hillary loses the popular vote nationally as well. No one bothers to contest it, as it does NOT have a fair amount of House members, and thus it doesn't have a fair amount of EV's either. The Rethugs just write it off.

Imagine as it keeps growing. There simply will never be enough EV's and House seats (if the pot is 538 for the EC and 435 for the House) to give CA fairness at electoral power level in both the EC and the House.

The same kettling occurs for giant cities all over the nation. Tens upon tens of millions are denied fair electoral power, and the Rethugs have gamed the entire system for their benefit. Urban drift, the ever-growing trend to huge urban areas is allowing the left (who dominate in these mega enclaves) to be kettled politically, at multiple inflection points, as well, especially at state and even more so, federal levels.

There is a solution:

Increase the size of the House of Representatives, and thus the EC, no Constitutional Amendment needed

The Electoral College is never going away. The National Popular Vote Compact is unconstitutional (especially if the SCOTUS is RW).

Abolition will never occur, as even if the constitutional amendment were passed in the Congress, all it takes is 13 states (the smaller ones, of course) to block it. They have way more than 13 who oppose it.

BUT there is a fix, and it just doesn't fix the electoral college. If fixes the House too.

Expand the House to 1001. That would also Expand the EC to 1106 (100 for senators, 1001 for House, plus 5 for DC). It doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment either, just an Act of Congress (overturning a 1929 Act).

Its been stuck at 435 (with 2 temp added for AK and HI for a couple years, removed in 1962) SINCE 1913!


The population then was 97 million. Now is 325 million. The average rep has almost 750,000 people in his/her district.

Because the EC is based (in the constitution) off number of congress people, increasing the House also increases the EC.

THEN you can more fairly split up those 1106 EV's and those 1001 House seats. Right now, a Wyoming electoral vote is worth 3.7 times MORE than a California vote.


Expanding the House also, of course allow for a more representational distribution for the states as well, at HOUSE government levels. California, and the other large states get FUCKED right now in every way.

The main barrier to this will be getting House members to dilute their power, PLUS Rethugs to go along, as they KNOW they have all the benefits to the current system


Read this for more info. http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

The 1001 is just my own number, you could do it so many different ways (such as the much less impactful (but still better than nothing) Wyoming Rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule or double it, plus one (has to be odd number to avoid ties)

[Bucky]

48. in 1787 the Sounders discussed how big the House of Reps should get

Alexander Hamilton's famous quote summed up their opinion then. He said "Even a thousand Socrates would still be a mob".

In other words, when a group of lawmakers gets too large, they lose their ability to deliberate on the law and they're given in to the forces of mob psychology.

the US Senate today is larger than the House of Reps was back then. The lower house is supposed to be a little mobby, but still needs the ability to meet and exchange ideas and petitions from the populace.

This is of course just one of several ways that we've lost the structural ability to operate as a government as designed and by the founding fathers.

[Grey Lemercier]

50. The reverse is even worse, ie. a citizen gets lost in the crush of far too many people

also in their single member district. 25 national legislative bodies around the world are larger than the US House of Representatives. 26 if you count the European Parliament (which is 76% bigger). China's National People's Congress has almost 3000 members. Here in the UK the total size of Parliament is 1472 (House of Lords 822, House of Commons 650). Adjust for population and we would have 7500 or so if we were the size of the US! Sweden has 349 Riksdag members for a country under 10 million. The US would need over 11,500 to match that ratio! The ONLY country with a worse ratio in terms of members of the lower house's number of people represented is the soon-to-be biggest nation in the world, India.

I absolutely disagree that a 300,000 population district for every House member (which yields around 1083 House members) is going to be "mob-like" and undoable. That is still TEN times more people than the 30,000 per House member we started off at.

The technology today versus the 1780's enables massive gains in productivity and time management. Increased member numbers would mean less expensive races, more time to concentrate on constituents back home, and of course, FUNDAMENTALLY UNFUCK the large states and large cities who are kettled into disempowerment vis-a-vis the small states under the current situation. I have no problem with compromising on the numbers, but in NO WAY can we go lower than the Wyoming Rule, and that is far too little, IMHO.

The USA 2010 Census population was 309 million. Right now we are around 325.5 million, so let's say 332 million in 2020. Thats 763,000 or so person per House member. That is more than 25 TIMES the number of people per House Rep that we started out with. The longer we wait to do this, the bigger the unfairness becomes, and, to be partisan, the more and more we, as Democrats, will get ratfucked on every level. Urban drift is killing our electoral power, and it is exploding.The EC will never be done away with, and the National Voter Compact will be found unconstitutional via the Compact Clause in the Constitution.

The only other solution is truly radical, hard and logistically a true nightmare.

Exodus Blue, a truly radical possible solution

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10028294467

The Electoral College is not going away, the House size, and thus the EC's number of votes, will not be increased and rectify vast inequities in the states (that is my truly favourite fix, but Rethugs will block it).

Sooooo, I say MOVE physically move, by the MILLIONS

You have until the beginning of 2020 (the next census) to do this.

Get the fuck out of nazi bible bang homophobic racist sexist shitsville

Utterly abandon the perma red states, and move to a very select group of states, turn them Blue, permanently, and shore up the close ones (MI, WI, VA, that is why they are light blue)

If you live in the red states on this map, move to the Blue coloured ones, make them BLUE in reality (thats 173 EV's flipped from this election.

California is light pink because that is such a huge, perma blue state, that several million can move and help make the Blue coloured states blue in reality. Perhaps MA, MD, NY, IL, NJ could contribute some blue move outs too.

A group of people far richer and smarter than me can work out the math and help plan and execute the move.

Even if RW scum try to do this, they WILL be depopulating the shithole states they are leaving, thus costing those red states' EV's, and making it easier, perhaps for stay-behind Dems to take over.

Crazy??? HELL YES, but it's something to think about, some of those states would not take so much to put them in perma blue territory, and it would take a shitload of power away from the xian nazis.

America has always been about people moving into it. Well now is the time, perhaps, to play out those moves, en masse, from shit states to states that can truly become a permanent force for good.

[Bucky]

51. Good point in general

but yeah, you get the idea why Baron Montesquieu said a large country cannot be a republic. The very size of our country makes our political system want to be a monarchy or a despotism

[Grey Lemercier]

52. I am truly open to alternative suggestions, do you have any? this problem is going to just keep

getting worse, regardless of the EC reapportionment that will occur post 2020 Census. The gains made by California and other states will be marginal, and quite possibly (in the case of Texas and then large swing states who could , as they did do in 2016, go red) even further ratfuck us and the country as a whole. Gen Z (iGen, post Millennials, whatever you want to call them, the group born post 1995 or post 2000) are unfortunately WAY more conservative, way more bible-banging church goers (almost 2 and half times more church attendance than millennials for example), and will be larger in size than Gen X and us Millennials. African Americans are shrinking in terms of percentage of the population, Hispanics are much more likely to vote Rethug than A-A's, especially the multigenerational ones, and we will now have extreme trouble getting pathways to Citizenship for the 10 to 15 million undocumented ones, who would be much more likely to vote for Dems.

The next 2 elections are so key on 3 main levels. In 2018, we face a horrific Senate map. The Rethugs could go over 60 seats, and unless they blow up in a disastrous way (here is hoping), they will likely gain a net 5 plus, which then makes 2024 the soonest we can take back the Senate. I break down the 2018, 2020, 2022 Senate races in absolute detail here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8429527 . It's an ugly sight.

In 2020, if we do not make inroads at state legislature levels, the post-2020 Census Congressional redistricting will ensure the soonest we probably can take back the House will be 2032 (yes, I am not joking, even in this massive (bullshit narrative) "change" election, around 97% of House Incumbents won.. Also, of course, in 2020, if Trump is somehow re-elected, that almost guarantees a decades long 7-2 hard RW SCOTUS. That may happen anyway (at least a 6-3 RW majority) if Ginsberg cannot hang on. Breyer and Kennedy surely cannot both serve until 2025 (the soonest we can appoint good SCOTUS judges if Trump, gag, wins).

The State (Governors, Legislators, Statewide elected offices) maps are even worse.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028299446

Overall, the Democratic party is at its lowest power level in combined State/Federal/Municipal elected offices since the Civil War.

We have to do something or we will become a bankster-run, technotronic, neo-feudal, oligarchic capitalist, apartheid, fundie xian new Sparta. A nation of mostly 21st century helots (the slaves in Sparta) with our most impactful export as official mercenaries (the Armed Forces will continue to be used for empiric war projection, propping up the petrol-dollar matrix, and further wealth consolidation at macro international levels).

I would love to hear your ideas to start to turn around the supertanker of state.

[Humanist_Activist]

55. The founders weren't always right, to be honest, they were...

on many levels far too skeptical of democracy as it is.

We can survive with a HOR of 1,000 representatives, given today's technology it would be easier to manage than in the past, but setting a hard limit on the size of the House simply ensures it no longer becomes representative over time. We are seeing the disconnect now, with relative ease, the Republicans were able to ensure themselves a majority in the House without having a majority in the electorate for 10 years. This is unacceptable in a purported Democracy, the House is supposed to the democratic(small d) body in the Federal government, that's what's its designed to be.

[eniwetok]

63. desirable principles were compromised away....

Madison was for a popular vote for president but came to the conclusion whites in slave states would not have much power. So he went along with an elector system. From the minutes of the Convention, July 19th 1787

MADISON: The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

71. What about proportional delegates instead of winner-take-all?

Hillary would have won the electoral college if the delegates in each state were awarded proportionally to the popular vote in each state.

http://www.fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all

But 1824 was also significant for another reason: it was the first election in which the majority of states used a statewide winner-take-all voting method for choosing their presidential electors.

It is a system that now seems like a fundamental part of the American democracy. Presidential candidates compete to win states, which is how they get votes in the Electoral College. The U.S. Constitution does not mandate that system, however.

EDIT: It also wouldn't be as easy to rig elections. With our current system, cheaters can focus on states that are close and try to rig it so their candidate gets a small popular vote win and ALL of the state delegates. In a proportional system, such tactics might only produce a difference of a single EC delegate. Risk vs. reward.

[Ken Burch]

93. I've supported that as well.

Thing is, there's little chance of ever getting that adopted in any of the red states.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

76. Excellent post... great idea!! Which tells me we'll never do it!

[Gothmog]

83. Does anyone really think that Congressional republicans will vote to increase the size of the house

That concept is so really funny

[Ken Burch]

92. You missed the part about challenging the Apportionment Act in court-

In which we could win over conservative SCOTUS justices by arguing that the act contravenes "original intent"-the original intent being that the House is supposed to provide equal representation by population.

It's far easier than trying to amend the constitution to abolish the EC OR the equally hopeless National Popular Vote thing.

[Gothmog]

97. Ken-your attempts at legal analysis are amusing

the House is reapportion every 10 years based on the Census. There is no case law for changing this in the real world. Your attempt at legal analysis really make me smile

[Ken Burch]

99. I know that, but the Apportionment Act is separate from that.

It is not part of the Constitution...it's simply a piece of legislation that may not pass constitutional muster.

BTW...stop talking down to me...you aren't entitled to do that.

You are simply one person with one opinion.

[Gothmog]

100. Ken-your theory is so weak that it is funny

Do you have even one lawyer wiling to file such a silly lawsuit. This claim is so weak and laughable that any lawyer who filed it would be subject to sanctions. Look up the political question doctrine.

Again, thank you for the laughs

[Gothmog]

107. The concept of a lawsuit attacking the apportionment act is dumb and would be rejected by the courts

When I read your post, I laughed because such a lawsuit would be kicked out of court under a number of grounds including the political question doctrine and/or the concept of justiciability. Just for grins, I looked and was amused to see that some idiots brought a similar lawsuit and guest what happened? http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/suit-seeks-to-double-size-of-house/

A special panel of three judges convened to hear the lawsuit concluded last Thursday that it is up to Congress to decide its own size.

“Plaintiffs here seek judicial entry into the exact area of decision-making that was reserved for Congress,” the court said in a 36-page ruling. “The Constitution allows Congress to set the number of House members. Mathematics do not control.”

The SCOTUS denied cert on this case http://www.apportionment.us/case.html This outcome was obvious to anyone who understood the concept of justiciability.

The courts rejected this claim once now and that ruling will be used if someone was silly enough to bring such a lawsuit again.

[Ken Burch]

108. Can you give the insulting, personally dismissive thing a rest?

If you disagree with me, fine, but it's not your place to act as if I'm not entitled to post things YOU happen to disagree with.

I've never done anything to deserve this from you, and neither has anyone else.

We all have just as much right to expect basically respectful treatment from you as you have to expect it from others.

And at a time when we need unity, you're doing nothing but sowing division.

[Gothmog]

110. Ken-I deal in fact and not feelings

Your feelings really do not matter when they deal with issues of constitutional law and the concept of justiciability. To use a concept from the rules of evidence, the feelings of a layperson about lawsuits affecting the constitution would not be admissible because such claims are lay opinions from someone who has no expertise in the area. Laypersons expressing opinions on such issues need to make sure that they understand the concepts. I initially ignored your OP's claim that a lawsuit could change the apportionment act because such claim would have no chance in the real world. I elected to focus an alternative that has an actual chance of coming about in the real world which is the National Popular vote. I was happy to defend the constitutionality of this proposal because I knew the law in this area.

You doubled down on the concept of a lawsuit attacking the apportionment act would be the preferable way. Under basic constitutional law, I was sure that such a lawsuit would be a loser and I was right. If you have read up on the issue and used facts you would have known that your proposed lawsuit would have no chance in the real world and that the courts had already rejected this concept with the SCOTUS denying cert in that lawsuit.

If you dislike the facts presented, then read up and use facts in response. Most laypersons would not advance the concept of a lawsuit without checking the case law first. The fact is that your entire thread on the Electoral College is based on a concept that most lawyers knew would not work in the real world. I am somewhat surprised that the case cited above was even brought in the first place but I am not surprised at either the three judge panel ruling or the denial of cert. by the SCOTUS

The bottom line is that we agree that the Electoral College is outdated but I am willing to support a concept that has a chance in the real world of working. 11 states with 165 electoral votes have already adopted this National Popular Vote concept.

[Ken Burch]

111. We both know National Popular Vote will never prevail.

I'd like to see it too, but it can't work unless it's adopted everywhere-it doesn't help if its only adopted by SOME of the states.

My proposal could be adopted by a vote of Congress, could be a powerful tool for getting people to the polls to flip Congress, could help build resistance to the voter suppression laws that are keeping people from the polls. It couldn't be derailed by Republican state legislatures(the ones that would have to adopt National Popular Vote). And "justiciability" doesn't enter into it because Marbury V. Madison established the principle of judicial revue of both congressional and presidential actions.

If you disagree with me or with anyone else, but you have an obligation do that without treating people as if they aren't entitled to disagree with you, that all of us should simply defer to your allegedly superior wisdom.

On the Left, we are supposed to have a situation in which everyone is treated with some basic level of respect. We are supposed to be the part of the spectrum that VALUES human beings. That's why I object to your tone. When you post, you never leave it at just disagreeing with people and trying to disprove their arguments on the merits-you use contempt and derision, and you do it with a lot of people. That's something people on the Right would do...we're supposed to be better than that, at least with each other.

That's why I am making a point of saying that you aren't using an appropriate tone for this board.

[Gothmog]

114. No,you are wrong

The National Popular Voter proposal does not need to be adopted in every state. All that is required is the adoption by states with 270 electoral votes. That is not all of the states. 11 states with 165 electoral voters have adopted this proposal already. We just need states with 105 electoral votes. I have three friends who are members of the Texas legislature who are thinking about proposing this yet again even though it may not be adopted.

Congressional republicans will never adopted your amusing concept. The GOP has an advantage in the electoral college that they will not give up without a fight. In addition, your amusing proposal would require 60 votes in the Senate and that this not likely. In the real world, the only proposal that makes sense is one that is not dependent on the approval of Congressional republicans. The only proposal that meets this criterion is the National Popular vote

As the concept in your OP for the powerful tool to get people to the polls, you do know that Sanders so-called revolution was a total bust?? According to what I have seen, Sanders did not expand the base of the party at all. The claim that Sanders brought in new voters is not supported by the facts https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/

Bernie Sanders recorded a resounding victory in New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday. He crushed his rival, Hillary Clinton, with no less than 60 percent of the vote. If Sanders hopes not only to win the election but to achieve his ambitious progressive agenda, though, that might not be enough.

To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."

In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.

The exit polls show that the claim that Sanders expanded the base is false in the real world. If sanders so-called revolution did not expand the base, then why would this proposal?

As for my tone, I am sorry that you are offended if someone points out that you are wrong. If you dislike posters pointing out that your posts are wrong, then either research your positions or come back with facts to back up your position. I deal with facts and not feelings.

[Ken Burch]

120. You have no right to talk down to me, or to anyone else.

n/t.

[Gothmog]

121. Ken-your contemplated lawsuit was a very dumb idea and had no chance in the real world

Any such lawsuit would be doomed to failure under basic doctrines that I first saw in an undergrad political science class. The issue of the political questions doctrine is well established and would doomed any such silly lawsuit. I was amused to see that anyone was stupid to bring such a lawsuit but I was not surprised to see that this law was dismissed because of the political questions doctrine.

Ken-your feelings or lay opinions do not matter in the real world. Opinions are not admissible in a court of law unless they meet the criterion to qualify as an expert opinion. Opinions of lay persons on legal issues are not meaningful in the real world. I use facts in my posts because in the real world one back arguments up with facts and not lay opinions or feelings. The issue of a law suit to strike down the Apportionment Act is a legal issue and I was correct in predicting that a court would have no trouble whatsoever in rejecting this silly claim.

Your thread was based on the concept of a silly lawsuit where the courts actually have directly ruled back in 2010. You really should consider reading up on the issues and using facts. If you had spent thirty seconds you would have seen that the courts had already ruled on this theory and the SCOTUS denied cert. in that ruling.

[Gothmog]

85. The Congressional republicans will never vote to give up their advantage

The only practical way to get rid of the electoral college is the National Popular vote proposal which can be done without the approval of congress or the amendment of the US constitution. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

[KamaAina]

98. Not to mention Congress.

Smaller districts = more reps of color, and more progressives.

[matt819]

101. Addendum

The US population in 1910 was less than 1/3 of what it is now.

But that's okay, since republicans believe they are living in 1910, and some of them are old enough to remember it.

[George II]

102. I don't see how the 435 number skews the Electoral College severely.

Raising the number would only increase Representatives in a few states, those with only 1 representative now (Vermont, Delaware, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska)

Right now the Representatives are determined by population, with the exceptions being those states above with population that falls beneath the number used for "one" Representatives in larger states.

What is skewed, with respect to governing and the Electoral College, is the fact that each state, regardless of its population, is assigned two Senators. That essentially gives Senators from states with lower population a "skewed" unproportional power. For example, Vermont's single Representative is only one of 435 members, whereas each of it's Senators are one of 100 members.