This is a very good thing. It seems like most people are tired to being ruled by 100K occasional voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada. Wouldn't it be crazy to see Presidential candidates have to actually campaign for votes in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles and Seattle and New Orleans? Unfortunately, I don't think our country is adaptable enough right now to get better. Still, at least most people understand that the electoral college means that their interests are not represented.
The current version of the EC is extremely flawed. The Upshot determined that if Alabama and not Florida had won the battle for the panhandle, Clinton would have won the 2016 election. Any decision system that isn’t robust against such an arbitrary and inconsequential difference should not be selecting the president of the United States.
My preference would be for non-violent secession. Why not ? It’s about as likely, perhaps more likely to happen than to abolish the Electoral College.
Yeah, there are a million of those too. I mentioned this a couple of days ago, but imagine that Republicans didn't win the a Congressional majority in 1888. Then, we likely have one Dakota state instead of 2.
Change the apportionment act so that the house isn't capped 435 members and apportion districts per 50,000 residents. This would address the electoral college and gerrymandering.
Not a bad thought. Wouldn't directly solve gerrymandering unless you pulled districting away from states (states could theoretically carve up their states by 50k in a gerrymandered fashion), but you could do that as well. Wouldn't mind carving 50k blocks like electors either, especially if they weren't gerrymandered. Not as good as popular vote, but would at least provide some incentive to compete for votes in a variety of locations.
It is always funny how the people who complain the most about how all their choices are terrible are also the most resistant to changing the system that produces those terrible choices. I'd rather the country not be run by low-information, occasional voters in states selected because accidents of history decided that they were "competitive."
Wow, 57% of the country are Ds? I'd think an R in Utah might like the parties to care what they think too.
The Apportionment Act was passed in 1929, when US population was 121M. At 435 reps, that's one rep for every 278,000 people. Population today is 333M, so that's one rep for every 765,000 people. I realize that you live in a very binary world where everything is the fault of the libs but just look at the math and ask youself whether a single rep can represent 765,000 constituents as well as they can 278,000 people while running for re-election every 2 years?
If libbies have that big of a majority then we're screwed regardless of the system we have in place. I believe that expanding the House, and thus the Electoral College, is actually in line with what the framers would want. Having said that, the point of the Electoral College was that the states were intended to have a much larger role in our form of government than they currently do.
Expected response by you given that the EC is the only chance the Republican Party has of ever winning an election since they never win the popular vote and most of the country detests their “policies.”
Changing the incentives is often more effective than a direct solution. The difficulty of gerrymandering would go up and the reward would go down.