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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

question everything

(48,797 posts)
Tue Jan 17, 2017, 01:30 PM Jan 2017

The electoral college

Before we put this forum to rest, we may want to think about the electoral college.

No, it will not be abolished. Not any time soon.

But there was a lot of talk about the disproportional power of small state. One reason is because each state has two senators, whether it is Wyoming and Vermont with about 600,000 people, or California with 38 million.

It would not have changed the results this time, but I think that we need to change the number of electors to 435, the same as the members of congress.

Thus, the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana each will have 1 vote, instead of 3.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

FBaggins

(27,698 posts)
6. Right. Congress can only change the number of EVs by changing the number of House seats
Wed Jan 18, 2017, 11:31 AM
Jan 2017

They can't take away the two EVs for the senate seats without an amendment.

TexasProgresive

(12,285 posts)
2. I haven't checked but wouldn't that require a constitutional ammendment?
Tue Jan 17, 2017, 01:43 PM
Jan 2017

If so, we should just get one to abolish the E.C..

Yupster

(14,308 posts)
3. You would need 3/4 th's of the state legislatures to agree to make that change
Wed Jan 18, 2017, 01:39 AM
Jan 2017

So why would states like Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas agree with that?

 

Joe941

(2,848 posts)
4. We really don't know how things would have played out...
Wed Jan 18, 2017, 09:22 AM
Jan 2017

if both candidates campaigned to win the popular vote instead of the electoral vote (most likely Clinton would have won). Campaigning only happens in a small number of states and the rest of the country is neglected. Now if the EC were done away with small states and smaller cities would be neglected. I live in a smaller area of the US and my area would get almost no attention without the EC. Places of high importance in the EC are not going to vote to get rid of it.

question everything

(48,797 posts)
5. I understand this
Wed Jan 18, 2017, 10:31 AM
Jan 2017

and this is why I don't think that the EC should be abolished altogether. But I think that it should be tweaked to be more proportionally to the population, as members of the house are apportioned.

 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
8. Either way you are asking small states to cede more power to the large states
Wed Jan 18, 2017, 03:17 PM
Jan 2017

RI, MA & CT don't want TX getting more power in an election and MT, SD & AK don't want CA getting more power in an election.

 

TheFrenchRazor

(2,116 posts)
10. true, but in general the reds have more "small" states, so they definitely will not let the EC go, o
Wed Jan 18, 2017, 08:11 PM
Jan 2017

be changed. that's why i think that blue states really have no choice but to secede.

question everything

(48,797 posts)
11. They already do. Because they are more populous
Wed Jan 18, 2017, 09:18 PM
Jan 2017

and have more representatives in the House.

Otherwise, each state will have one vote and then CA and TX would complain that they should have more weight than the smaller ones.

Or just switch to popular votes - one person one vote - and you know that the red states would object.

 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
13. The EC isn't going anywhere anytime soon
Thu Jan 19, 2017, 07:41 AM
Jan 2017

and the bigger states aren't going to get more representatives then they already have.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
7. If I had my way
Wed Jan 18, 2017, 01:49 PM
Jan 2017

States would earn EVs by the number of people who voted. 1000 votes would earn 1 EV.

This may help solve the problem of disenfranchising voters if governors know that their state will have very little influence over a national election thus undermining their own federal access to people within government.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The electoral college