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

2016 Postmortem

radius777

(3,814 posts)

18. problem w/our entire system is blue votes don't matter

Reply to Ken Burch (Original post)

Fri Dec 2, 2016, 06:18 PM

Dec 2016

as much as red votes.

Whether its the EC, congress, senate, etc - rural/whiter areas are overrepresented compared to bluer, metro, more densely populated areas.

The senate is the most glaring example. Huge, diverse, wealth producing states like NY and CA get the same two votes in the senate (which decides major national issues) as small, rural, homogenous states.

The way the system was setup by the founders may've made sense 240 years ago, but it certainly doesn't now.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

26 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Until we can abolish the EC, we should work to make it proportional by total state vote. [View all] Ken Burch Dec 2016 OP

If that means that Hillary would win alot of California's electoral applegrove Dec 2016 #1

almost half of Iowa and Ohio's as well. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #2

This is much more likely to happen than abolishing EC. jackson Dec 2016 #3

The Compact will be found unconstitutional, unfortunately Grey Lemercier Dec 2016 #6

There are some constitutional scholars that agree with you, most do not etherealtruth Dec 2016 #20

I would lay wager that a RW SCOTUS (if it gets that far) will strike it down Grey Lemercier Dec 2016 #21

I am not an attorney, nor am I a constitutional scholar; however .... etherealtruth Dec 2016 #22

will read it, thanks Grey Lemercier Dec 2016 #23

How would that help? It would still give more electoral votes to low population states. n/t pnwmom Dec 2016 #4

I've seen this plan before, and one thing that I always wondered about was... TrollBuster9090 Dec 2016 #5

At the same time it would mean that rump would have captured a large percentage of libtodeath Dec 2016 #7

I did a rough calculation a week or so ago if the states EV were portioned csziggy Dec 2016 #8

That at least has a result that is fair and in proportion to what the popular vote was. libtodeath Dec 2016 #9

True - but I wonder if the method for determining electoral votes should be altered csziggy Dec 2016 #10

I think you can multiply the size of the EC Ken Burch Dec 2016 #14

Yeah, but then we'd get a chunk of TX, where radius777 Dec 2016 #19

It's a good idea, but getting there is almost impossible. DanTex Dec 2016 #11

Someone already did that analysis philosslayer Dec 2016 #12

The limit on the House of 435 needs to be separated from the EC. Persondem Dec 2016 #13

That would require a constitutional amendment. BzaDem Dec 2016 #16

It might. But the limit of 435 for the HoR was done by legislation, not a constitutional convention Persondem Dec 2016 #17

Oh yes, the size of the house is just a statute. BzaDem Dec 2016 #24

I read somewhere that Trump would have received 56% of the electoral votes if this were universal. BzaDem Dec 2016 #15

problem w/our entire system is blue votes don't matter radius777 Dec 2016 #18

Blue states would split there vote; Red states won't. briv1016 Dec 2016 #25

that is a very bad idea flyingfysh Dec 2016 #26