Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
79. It should be modified to also reflect population.
Wed Jul 18, 2018, 10:18 PM
Jul 2018

Last edited Wed Jul 18, 2018, 10:51 PM - Edit history (1)

A state like Wyoming should get 1 electoral vote, California should get between 60-80 electoral votes. In addition, there should be no sectioning like in Maine and Nebraska, the winner of a state should get every electoral vote, this gives appropriate power to the places where people actually live, like cities and surburbs.

It works hack89 Jul 2018 #1
It doesn't work. 70% of the population will be living in 16 states before long. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #7
If you say so. Nt hack89 Jul 2018 #23
You're right. Everything is going great! kcr Jul 2018 #101
It's fucked up already. shanny Jul 2018 #27
Agreed. Reading that article earlier today just drove the point home that it's getting worse. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #41
Can you give us a link to the article? Nt raccoon Jul 2018 #107
here Celerity Jul 2018 #110
100% of the population lived in 13 states right after the Revolutionary War. LiberalFighter Jul 2018 #85
19% of the population in 1790 lived in Virginia Spider Jerusalem Jul 2018 #103
Really? WTF does that even mean?? nt USALiberal Jul 2018 #71
It means it is better than most alternatives hack89 Jul 2018 #83
It works for the RW anti-democracy forces. Crunchy Frog Jul 2018 #105
Ok. hack89 Jul 2018 #108
It works well for Rhode Island hack89 Jul 2018 #109
And our taxation system works great for billionaires Crunchy Frog Jul 2018 #134
That's nice hack89 Jul 2018 #136
It works for the states that are over-represented. Not for the states that aren't. pnwmom Jul 2018 #151
Oh well hack89 Jul 2018 #153
Why would it be hurting the small states? I agree they would fight it -- because they would lose pnwmom Jul 2018 #157
You have to get them to vote for it first hack89 Jul 2018 #160
It clearly does not work Chickensoup Jul 2018 #152
From my perspective in Rhode Island it works very well hack89 Jul 2018 #154
Dictatorships "work" as well. guillaumeb Jul 2018 #155
It was a necessary compromise to create America hack89 Jul 2018 #156
Even thought it allows a very few rural states to control the rest? guillaumeb Jul 2018 #158
So convince all those states that stand to lose political power to support such an admendment hack89 Jul 2018 #159
How exactly would small states be harmed? Please provide specifics? Garrett78 Jul 2018 #203
Our two senators have ensured Rhode Island gets its fair share of federal funds hack89 Jul 2018 #204
We can create laws to ensure fairness/proportionality in funding without... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #206
Why are you so determined........ WillowTree Jul 2018 #211
They would still have a voice. Why are you determined to make sure they have an outsized voice? Garrett78 Jul 2018 #212
They would have no voice in the government that would mean anything. WillowTree Jul 2018 #213
Please give specifics. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #217
This is a pointless exercise. WillowTree Jul 2018 #218
Representation in the House is based on population DeminPennswoods Jul 2018 #2
What does "on even footing" mean, though? Again, would the small states not benefit from... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #9
The US is a representative democracy DeminPennswoods Jul 2018 #15
No manor321 Jul 2018 #18
Like I said, it seems to boil down to the argument that tyranny of the minority is better... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #19
The relatively few people who live in less populated states are represented when it Sophia4 Jul 2018 #104
I would add that the District of Columbia should be granted statehood. thucythucy Jul 2018 #129
Yes, and the status of Puerto Rico should be changed so that it is a state also. Sophia4 Jul 2018 #135
Absolutely. thucythucy Jul 2018 #139
Yes. argyl Jul 2018 #221
I agree. Captain Stern Jul 2018 #222
If they don't want to be a state, then we should have no responsibility for them. Sophia4 Jul 2018 #224
Your wage disparity argument falls flat based on the figures. former9thward Jul 2018 #32
There are many factors there. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #37
It would only be elegant if the representation in the House was... brush Jul 2018 #65
It's Republican privilege. Democrats are starting the race from well behind the starting line. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #75
It got out of whack when they decided to limit the total number to 435. LiberalFighter Jul 2018 #87
All that takes is an Act of Congress, it doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment Celerity Jul 2018 #111
Thanks for the link. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #124
Yes, I knew the Senate was slowly drifting this way as well but had no idea Celerity Jul 2018 #127
Yep! LiberalFighter Jul 2018 #141
Now that is a good argument and possible. It should be increased. California is penalized by this. Demsrule86 Jul 2018 #114
I can't see this a being an issue GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #161
CA's increase in seats would be far greater. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #164
Which is the exact same proportion those two states are now! GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #165
High density/blue areas would be broken up into a lot more districts than... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #170
Now you're moving the goalposts. Changing the subject really GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #171
Fair point. And gerrymandering is made easier by the concentration of people... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #175
It's an issue because the number of reps was capped at 435... brush Jul 2018 #179
In 1930 California had 20 congressmen GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #185
You should read the link and google other repug schemes over the... brush Jul 2018 #186
So now you just change the subject? GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #189
You are correct about 53. brush Jul 2018 #191
I would agree with that if Congress was proportional represented JonLP24 Jul 2018 #195
This is why the republicans have invested in 30+ years of the hate am radio that Tumbulu Jul 2018 #3
Technically an option manor321 Jul 2018 #10
Or we can just vote. EffieBlack Jul 2018 #46
This is why I can't take seriously the idea that we just need to have a "50-state strategy." Garrett78 Jul 2018 #51
But we can fund progressive radio to battle these horrible stations. Tumbulu Jul 2018 #96
For sure. There are a number of media-related concerns we need to address. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #98
I wish I could agree. But I can't. GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #162
That's a good point. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #178
There are too many states, too many legislatures and way too many politicians BSdetect Jul 2018 #4
Compromise at the Convention manor321 Jul 2018 #5
They probably didn't envision 70% of the population living in just 16 out of 50 states. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #11
There were only 13 states then tirebiter Jul 2018 #22
Yep. It's a completely different world, and our laws should reflect that. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #33
Exactly, farmers / rural live was the most common treestar Jul 2018 #57
I totally think they could picture of the industrial revolution. GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #163
True. I recall Jefferson's letters treestar Jul 2018 #168
The best argument for it is no longer valid. tinrobot Jul 2018 #6
Yep, this isn't the 18th century. And soon 70% of the population will be living... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #24
Is this post for real? oberliner Jul 2018 #8
Yes. Because before long 70% of the population will be living in just 16 states. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #13
OK oberliner Jul 2018 #20
I'm arguing that both chambers should be proportional. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #26
Then what would be the point of having two different chambers? oberliner Jul 2018 #34
The two chambers have different constitutional rolls. Blue_true Jul 2018 #47
I agree with this. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #49
What are your thoughts on the Electoral College? oberliner Jul 2018 #70
I'd abolish it. thucythucy Jul 2018 #78
It should be modified to also reflect population. Blue_true Jul 2018 #79
Have you seen this? oberliner Jul 2018 #80
No, I didn't see that. Blue_true Jul 2018 #88
This example gives California 65 electoral votes and drops Wyoming to 1 oberliner Jul 2018 #89
Did it adjust all states, or just Wyoming and California? Blue_true Jul 2018 #91
It adjusted all states oberliner Jul 2018 #116
Giving them out proportionally wouldn't solve the problem of... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #121
True but it would address the millions of votes in California that didn't matter oberliner Jul 2018 #131
Allocating proportionally opens the system up to manipulation. Blue_true Jul 2018 #132
Plus the judiciary exists to enforce treestar Jul 2018 #59
They know they have it backwards, but they like it that way. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #62
I've seen the allegation, but could you point us towards the actual argument LanternWaste Jul 2018 #145
If the House had fair representation living with 2 senators per state... brush Jul 2018 #74
I think the framers did envision exactly that. former9thward Jul 2018 #36
Perhaps, but the total population back then was minuscule. It's a totally different world now. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #39
Let's have a new Constitutional convention then. former9thward Jul 2018 #42
I think that's the way to go, and I think the framers would've expected that to have happened by now Garrett78 Jul 2018 #43
That should be something. The Koch brothers and the Mercers will be dirty tricking Blue_true Jul 2018 #50
You are basically proposing eliminating the Senate, not changing it. forthemiddle Jul 2018 #112
What's wrong with considering this issue? treestar Jul 2018 #58
Fair enough oberliner Jul 2018 #72
The argument is "all states have equal power" under the Constitution PoliticAverse Jul 2018 #12
But, of course, all states don't have equal power. The small states have *much* more say... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #14
Well that's electoral votes not senators. And smaller states do have less say than larger states... PoliticAverse Jul 2018 #21
The number of electoral votes is based on the number of Reps and Senators, giving small states... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #28
Electoral votes counts are affected treestar Jul 2018 #60
The Senate is proportional 2naSalit Jul 2018 #16
So, your two Senators represent a million people stopbush Jul 2018 #25
Yep. Tyranny of the minority prevents universal health care, action on climate change, etc. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #30
And that's why the 2naSalit Jul 2018 #140
Well, one fix would be to move some Senate functions - like confirming judges and SCOTUS justices - stopbush Jul 2018 #147
Which would also require a constitutional amendment. WillowTree Jul 2018 #148
I am okay with it 2naSalit Jul 2018 #149
Just wait until the House has 5000 or 10000 members. We'll need a new Capitol Building. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #150
Because we are the union of separate states? X_Digger Jul 2018 #17
Changing it is all but impossible. Hoyt Jul 2018 #29
I know, sadly. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #31
that is why we must always have 50 states strategy AlexSFCA Jul 2018 #35
Unless Democrats abandon core principles, they aren't going to win in places like WY and ID. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #38
Tell that to Doug Jones in Alabama GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #166
There's a world of difference between a national campaign and a statewide campaign. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #167
I think abandoning core principals JonLP24 Jul 2018 #198
So, what is your proposal to fix this? Bettie Jul 2018 #40
Fairness. Proportionality. Every state would have at least 1 Senator. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #45
I say one house only treestar Jul 2018 #63
We could live with 2 senators per state if the House representation... brush Jul 2018 #76
Your post is factually incorrect GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #169
Your post has some truths to it but NY is still one of the largest... brush Jul 2018 #174
I'm about done here GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #180
That 700k is an average. California should have more reps. brush Jul 2018 #181
No it's not an average. GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #188
Dig into Tom Delay as one example of repug gerrymandering schemes. brush Jul 2018 #190
Gerrymandering is a totally different thing than congressional proportioning GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #192
California was just an example. Gerrymandering IMO has contributed... brush Jul 2018 #194
It is an average. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #196
In that you are correct. The small states are the fly in the ointment GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #197
I'd like to see a complete list of districts by population size. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #200
I too would be curious GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #202
It becomes even more impossible as the overall population grows. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #205
So much good food for thought here. GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #208
Sounds like a plan. I may start a new thread asking those questions. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #209
Wait till tomorrow? Please 😄 GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #210
Oops. Here's the link, so that you can find it tomorrow: Garrett78 Jul 2018 #216
Not directed at anyone in particular sdfernando Jul 2018 #44
I get all of that. This is a completely different world now, and I suspect... Garrett78 Jul 2018 #48
I am loathe to have a Constitutional convention sdfernando Jul 2018 #67
They were a small group of wealthy, white supremacist men. Let's not glorify them. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #69
I don't believe I'm glorifying them sdfernando Jul 2018 #126
The Connecticut Compromise which resulted in each State, irrespective of size, having two senators TomSlick Jul 2018 #52
I bet the framers would be surprised to know we haven't already had another const. convention. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #53
Oh, surely not! TomSlick Jul 2018 #54
Perhaps. fescuerescue Jul 2018 #128
the smaller states might not be so treestar Jul 2018 #61
Smaller Republican states would never go along. They will not give up their over-sized power. TomSlick Jul 2018 #84
should be 1 senator allocated to each state and the other 50 given proportionally by size sunonmars Jul 2018 #55
That's how the House works. dflprincess Jul 2018 #93
Now not much, but back at the start treestar Jul 2018 #56
Look up the Connecticut Compromise sarisataka Jul 2018 #64
I'm aware of how things came to be, but this is a completely different world. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #68
Argue with the founding fathers...but seems to work. beachbum bob Jul 2018 #66
The framers couldn't have envisioned today's world. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #73
There is none, and it's funny watching people try to defend it. DanTex Jul 2018 #77
Good grief, get a 5th grade civics book KelleyKramer Jul 2018 #81
I didn't ask how it originated. I asked what the current justification is for it. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #82
The same as it has been all along KelleyKramer Jul 2018 #92
Thanks for the snark, but I don't think that justification applies any longer. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #95
Super informative! kcr Jul 2018 #102
The Senate is the last chamber to pass the law. LiberalFighter Jul 2018 #86
"What's the argument for each state having the same number of US Senators?" AncientGeezer Jul 2018 #90
That's not an argument for it. And this is a completely different world now. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #97
How is each State having 2 Senators cruel Government? AncientGeezer Jul 2018 #115
A fraction of the population is represented by half the Senators. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #119
It was a necessary concession to get the smaller states to ratify the Constitution Recursion Jul 2018 #94
Yes, that's how it originated. But, as you say, it's incredibly unfair. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #99
And then the same pressures that originate it sustain it Recursion Jul 2018 #100
It's absolutely necessary to have a balance between territory and population. joshcryer Jul 2018 #118
Yeah, I don't particularly care about the territory Recursion Jul 2018 #123
Why does a territory need representation? What does that even mean? Garrett78 Jul 2018 #187
You can have all the intellecutual thought games you want on this, the reality is it isn't going to still_one Jul 2018 #106
It really doesn't matter because you won't change it. If you can't convince enough people to vote Demsrule86 Jul 2018 #113
It's the epitome of perfection for a democratic republic. joshcryer Jul 2018 #117
I agree about boosting the number of Representatives. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #120
That's fine. If there is an overwhelmingly popular bill... joshcryer Jul 2018 #122
Presumably, but that sure as hell isn't happening now. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #125
The argument is that.... NCTraveler Jul 2018 #130
Because we were only a Union, where States had much more power, and Senators represented THOSE jmg257 Jul 2018 #133
Consider that if all of Congress was proportional based on population....... WillowTree Jul 2018 #137
It was a compromise D_Master81 Jul 2018 #138
Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the sake of clarity, I think you meant to say....... WillowTree Jul 2018 #142
correct D_Master81 Jul 2018 #193
You have to go back to the begining louis c Jul 2018 #143
On the off chance schools no longer teach the basics... LanternWaste Jul 2018 #144
You must have missed my edit of the OP. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #146
Every idea floated here would not only require a super majority in Congress. GulfCoast66 Jul 2018 #172
Actually, that would be my preference, as well. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #177
This is basic civics jmowreader Jul 2018 #173
I wish people would stop with the "basic civics" stuff, especially since I clarified the OP. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #176
You mean, why do we still have it? jmowreader Jul 2018 #199
Basically, but I'm well aware of the enormous hurdles in the way of amending the constitution. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #201
The Greens want to eliminate the Senate because it's undemocratic. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2018 #182
It is insane. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #184
So urban doesn't overrun rural wonkwest Jul 2018 #183
Please see posts #203-#204, as well as #206. Garrett78 Jul 2018 #207
I saw wonkwest Jul 2018 #220
and I'm sorry to say.....and hope it hasn't been said already...... a kennedy Jul 2018 #214
HOLY CRAP.....IS THIS THE LONGEST THREAD EVER??? a kennedy Jul 2018 #215
The argument is we haven't adjusted the electoral process at all despite 250 years of change. Saguaro Jul 2018 #219
It gives the states with smaller population disprapportionate strength in the Senate. Captain Stern Jul 2018 #223
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What's the argument for e...»Reply #79