2016 Postmortem

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)

28. That can be done legislatively.

Fri Dec 2, 2016, 03:04 AM

Dec 2016

There's no good reason for the House of Representatives to be the same size they were in 1911-a time when the country's population was less than a third of what it is now.

Instead, it should be 1 representative for every 700,000 people(with every state of less than 700,000 people retaining the current single seat they hold in the House(this would give us a chamber with about 458 or 459 seats, a manageable increase in the membership of the chamber). And it would return the House to its intended role of offering representation by population.

Doing that would also significantly correct the current democratic deficit in the Electoral college, since electoral votes are apportioned on the basis of the congressional and senatorial representation of each state.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If you abolish the EC [View all] boston bean Dec 2016 OP

Yeap, the EC was a racist compromise (link inside) uponit7771 Dec 2016 #1

Never going to happen Travis_0004 Dec 2016 #2

Yes BeyondGeography Dec 2016 #3

The irony of that post....glaring.... Nancyswidower Dec 2016 #10

2 senators for each state is enough to protect the small states. POTUS should be elected by beaglelover Dec 2016 #24

I agree. The EC is a chance for the Wyomings and North Dakotas.... Raster Dec 2016 #4

Isn't it amazing how much attention the Wyomings and North Dakotas get in the campaigns? Goblinmonger Dec 2016 #6

The only power the least populous states have... Raster Dec 2016 #8

The Senate is consolation enough BeyondGeography Dec 2016 #11

Amen to this! n/t musicblind Dec 2016 #30

A Constitutional Amendment might never happen ... Martin Eden Dec 2016 #18

I would assume if 270 electoral votes ever signed on, it would go to the supreme court Travis_0004 Dec 2016 #20

Maybe, maybe not Martin Eden Dec 2016 #22

Several lawyers have made the argument that it could not be challenged constitutionally musicblind Dec 2016 #31

Only way it happens if pukes lose an election in EC they won in popular vote Va Lefty Dec 2016 #5

It will never happen but, the EC should be amended MurrayDelph Dec 2016 #7

Will not happen Flavius Aetius Dec 2016 #9

Not going to happen....and shouldn't.... Nancyswidower Dec 2016 #12

Sorry that doesn't wash. LiberalFighter Dec 2016 #14

We just found out that your narrative isn't accurate....didn't we? Nancyswidower Dec 2016 #16

So you are against a national popular vote but think it is okay with an electoral college. LiberalFighter Dec 2016 #32

Simple One word answer to your question.." So you are against a national popular vote.." Nancyswidower Dec 2016 #34

You must have a problem with understanding the details. LiberalFighter Dec 2016 #35

Not at all LiberalFighter..just that I've been doing this for a LONG time, I want all states to vote Nancyswidower Dec 2016 #36

This message was self-deleted by its author Jake Stern Dec 2016 #26

and as a PAer, I don't like the idea that 80k voters in 3 states can decide the president n/t JustinL Dec 2016 #29

Convince the Electors Pantagruel Dec 2016 #13

One problem with this Flavius Aetius Dec 2016 #15

EC in current form is outdated. radius777 Dec 2016 #17

Don't forget the Senate was first chosen by the state legislatures, was called the "upper house". jmg257 Dec 2016 #19

OMG! One man one vote! Also, don't states already have power (Senators)? TuslaUltra Dec 2016 #21

Damn straight! Get rid of the fucking electoral college. It has given us 2 unqualified presidents beaglelover Dec 2016 #23

Or we could allow for an increase in the number of representatives. (Capped at 438 in 1911) aidbo Dec 2016 #25

That can be done legislatively. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #28

Agreed. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #27

Abolishing the EC won't affect the 2016 election. MineralMan Dec 2016 #33