The electoral college

[question everything]

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.

[Wounded Bear]

1. It still requires an amendment to the Constitution...

[FBaggins]

6. Right. Congress can only change the number of EVs by changing the number of House seats

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

[TexasProgresive]

2. I haven't checked but wouldn't that require a constitutional ammendment?

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

[Yupster]

3. You would need 3/4 th's of the state legislatures to agree to make that change

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

[Joe941]

4. We really don't know how things would have played out...

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]

5. I understand this

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]

8. Either way you are asking small states to cede more power to the large states

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]

10. true, but in general the reds have more "small" states, so they definitely will not let the EC go, o

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

[question everything]

11. They already do. Because they are more populous

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]

13. The EC isn't going anywhere anytime soon

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

[Exilednight]

7. If I had my way

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.

[question everything]

12. I like this idea (nt)

[TheFrenchRazor]

9. eliminate the EC, or blue states should just secede. nt