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

2016 Postmortem

pat_k

(10,879 posts)

10. The problem is, the "balance" is severely tilted.

Reply to davidn3600 (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 29, 2016, 02:09 AM

Nov 2016

Electors are allocated based on size of Congressional delegation (members of house + 2 senators). Votes cast by residents of different states are given different weight.

For example, Wyoming, with a population of about 500,000 (typical congressional district is about 700,000) has three electors. Consequently, one vote cast in WY is worth four votes cast in CA.

Does that seem to be a good "balance" to you?

This is not about electing more people from one party or the other. It's about giving all our votes equal weight.

And, BTW, I thought people who advocated the "nuclear option" were flat wrong.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [View all] pat_k Nov 2016 OP

Please note that they're all blue states. hedda_foil Nov 2016 #1

Passed Repub Arizona House (40-16) and Repub Oklahoma Senate (28-18) pat_k Nov 2016 #3

Nebraska and Maine don't do "winner-takes-all" pat_k Nov 2016 #5

The difference between proportionality and those two is gerrymandering FBaggins Nov 2016 #18

Not a fan of this approach MichMan Nov 2016 #2

All this means is the winner of the vote wins the election. No other country has such Maraya1969 Nov 2016 #4

Disagree with the Electoral College if you must... FBaggins Nov 2016 #19

I didn't know that about the Brits. But they are the ancestors of the American Maraya1969 Nov 2016 #20

True... but they're hardly the only example FBaggins Nov 2016 #22

If the compact states were barely 270 votes, the entire system would be unstable and probably fail tritsofme Nov 2016 #6

We have a habit of not thinking ahead on matters like this davidn3600 Nov 2016 #8

The problem is, the "balance" is severely tilted. pat_k Nov 2016 #10

But if you don't like the system, you have to change it. There is a process. davidn3600 Nov 2016 #13

??? pat_k Nov 2016 #9

If the compact states are at 270 or just barely over, it would be incredibly unstable and vulnerable tritsofme Nov 2016 #12

It is not actually enacted as a "compact"... pat_k Nov 2016 #14

Then we should never pass a law marylandblue Nov 2016 #15

The last time a republican won the popular vote was Bush 2004. It is probably not Maraya1969 Nov 2016 #21

Many constitutional scholors have suggested this is unconstitutional davidn3600 Nov 2016 #7

Passed Repub Arizona House (40-16) and Repub Oklahoma Senate (28-18) pat_k Nov 2016 #11

P.S. pat_k Nov 2016 #16

This message was self-deleted by its author jfern Nov 2016 #17

This proposal ends up being as odd as the electoral college. IphengeniaBlumgarten Nov 2016 #23