Easily. In fact, more than that would be possible. Think through the math here. You have a 50-50 state. Let's say that it has a voting population of 5,000,000. That would be 100 districts in the proposed system. Let's start designing districts with 60% for one party and 80% for the other party. Let's start with the "minority" party districts (i.e., the less preferred party). We want some districts to have 80% for that party to pack those voters. Let's take 25 districts and pack them with 80% on average for the "minority" party. That pulls 1,000,000 of the voters for the "minority" party and 250,000 of the "majority" party. So we would have 1,500,000 voters for the minority party and 2,250,000 voters for the majority party remaining for the other 75 districts. They would, therefore, all be somewhere around 60% to the "majority" party. Large enough gaps to make sure that they hold each of the districts.
You want over 6,900 representatives? We couldn't afford that? Think how many congressional office buildings there would be. 345.000,000 residents divided by 50,000 is 6,900/
I can't argue with your math but I think that increased difficulties in gerrymandering wouldn't be strictly mathematical. I also think that if you were able to successfully gerrymander a state's districts they would be less likely to stay gerrymandered for the entire 10 years between censuses.
Is it easier to pass legislation when you need 218 votes or when you need 3451 votes? In other words, would we see the same amount of congressional action that we do under the present system?
This would solve 90% of the problems without requiring any amendments to the constitution. I don’t see why anyone is in favor of a winner take all system that awards the same number of votes regardless of whether a candidate wins a state by 0.8% or 80%.
Very true on the potential issue of a district staying gerrymandered. The smaller it is, the more small shifts, such as a company moving into an area or leaving an area or a developer working in an area, could result in pretty radical changes. Good point.
winner takes all goes against our entire system of gubmnt set up to ensure that the majority doesn't dominate the minority...something about taxation without representation comes to mind
If the EC was not in place, would the presidential candidates be campaigning in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania? No, they would be in NYC, LA, Houston, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, Atlanta and other big cities.
I mean, Atlanta is in Georgia. But yes, the campaigns would market, through a combination of visits and other promotional events and materials, across the entire country. Think of this as any sort of mass marketed product. Does Coca-Cola or McDonald's ignore the markets of Salt Lake City or Las Vegas because they are smaller than Houston or Los Angeles? Heck, do they ignore Reno, NV or Savannah, GA? Of course not. They go wherever there are potential sales. Politicians would do the same. They will go wherever there are persuadable votes, in terms of who somebody would select as their preferred candidate or whether they will vote at all.
Is campaigning location the most important reason the maintain the EC? (remember modern tech when considering your ans)
If this were strictly a math problem, then you would be correct but it's not a math problem. Congress is comprised of people not numbers. People have to be persuaded and that persuasion is often acheived with earmarks. So, are you going to argue that creating earmarks for a few dozen people is just as easy as creating earmarks for a few hundred?
Yah, already headed this off earlier. You don’t like overlords, except you do. Yours, which, actually is YOU. Perhaps we don’t agree. Why not leave me be?
where/how is it decided how the EC vote in any state is allocated? could we get a state amendment to make it proportional?
My understanding is that state legislatures decide how electors are selected. They can make it proportional or they can take the popular vote out of the equation altogether and make the decision ride on a coin toss. Edit: Some states have the selection process in the state consitution.
I think that Nebraska and Maine allocate their vote by congressional districts instead of the "winner take all" that the other 48 states use
