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

zipplewrath

(16,698 posts)
6. Yes
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 12:47 PM
Dec 2016

This whole mess is a string of decisions by people who didn't understand the whole system.

The EC was created for several reasons, whose motives aren't all pure. None the less it held two basic concepts underpinning it. 1) The president should be representative of the "whole" nation, not just the more populous regions. So it attempted to ensure that the support would be "distributed" across the country. And 2) that we should have our votes pass through electors in case there was the need to moderate the will of the rabble so to speak.

Unfortunately several subsequent changes have destroyed all of that.

When we limited the House to 535 members, we started the process by which some states have way more representation than others. This is especially true in the EC because of the two senator rule. Since the House is no longer "equally" distributed by population as intended, the minority has way more power than ever expected or intended.

When various states started handcuffing their electors to the results of their state elections, it caused any aspect of "moderation of the rabble" to disappear.

The quickest, and I suggest most likely modification that could be made is to "disconnect" the EC from the congressional representation. In essence, return to the originally intended distribution of representation for the EC. Take the smallest state and they get one EC vote ( or 3 or whatever). Then, based upon population, each state gets a proportionally larger number of electors. We may end up with a total of 2500 electors or whatever, but they will be far more closely aligned with the population than what we have now. Yet, it will also be true that ultimately, one will have to have a truly national support to win. You can just rack up a lot of votes on both coasts and cruise to a victory. You'll need to "win" some states in the middle.

This could be further modified to suggest that the EC votes be divided within states based upon the results in that state. Again, it would help ensure that the EC vote and the popular vote was held more closely. That does tend a bit to undermine the "national" support, but only a bit. What it does do it tend to influence the distribution less on a state level, and more on a population density level. So states that are otherwise "strong red" would lose an EC vote or two because of large urban population centers. In reality, some of the converse would be true as well. The dems would probably lose a significant number of EC votes in California, despite "winning" the state.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Actually, political scientists identified the US as a "civil oligarchy". It's not a democracy. DetlefK Dec 2016 #1
Then let's make it one. lake loon Dec 2016 #4
trump won because not enough people voted for hillary in Wi, Ohio, PA and Michigan beachbum bob Dec 2016 #2
Our system is a FRAUD. lake loon Dec 2016 #3
How much is each vote worth citood Dec 2016 #5
It's based on population SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #8
For the purpose of my exercise, I used voters citood Dec 2016 #10
Re: more accurately SFnomad Dec 2016 #14
Let me re-explain citood Dec 2016 #17
It doesn't matter how many times you "re-explain" it SFnomad Dec 2016 #18
Question citood Dec 2016 #20
I'm not going to play your games ... sorry. SFnomad Dec 2016 #23
Games? citood Dec 2016 #24
Buh-bye n/t SFnomad Dec 2016 #25
That strategy won't get you a good grade in debate class. citood Dec 2016 #26
Yes zipplewrath Dec 2016 #6
Californians are only worth a fraction of someone in Wyoming? That sounds like UNEQUAL Protection KittyWampus Dec 2016 #7
DU would love the EC if the results had been reversed Lurks Often Dec 2016 #9
I'd pretend your allegation valid also if it validated my bias... LanternWaste Dec 2016 #12
Actually, my husband and I were discussing this before the election Bettie Dec 2016 #28
speak for yourself. nt TheFrenchRazor Dec 2016 #29
We aren't a democracy. Joe941 Dec 2016 #11
No, you made a common mistake. Kilgore Dec 2016 #27
It Is Ridiculous colsohlibgal Dec 2016 #13
yep. get used to bending over. nt TheFrenchRazor Dec 2016 #30
The entire population of Wyoming is only slightly over 500,000 True_Blue Dec 2016 #15
Yeah. Wyoming's the problem. That's the ticket. Goblinmonger Dec 2016 #16
There is a middle ground, which most people are unaware of citood Dec 2016 #19
Population centers HoneyBadger Dec 2016 #22
so what? PEOPLE count, not square miles. I say that as someone who lives in SD. nt TheFrenchRazor Dec 2016 #31
The Electoral College empowers swing states, not suburban and rural areas Jim Lane Dec 2016 #32
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS A RACIST COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! uponit7771 Dec 2016 #21
AMEN! nt iluvtennis Dec 2016 #33
2 dakotas. make 3 californis, but then there will be 5 texases. pansypoo53219 Dec 2016 #34
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Trumpscum Won Because An ...»Reply #6