I'm sure at least a fraction of the 80,000 will be monthly recurring donations, which is ultimately a net positive for the cause. Can't complain too much about more donations, though!
The number of members in the House of Representatives is capped at 435. Essentially this means that if there is a sudden influx of new people to certain states in the US, and the population of the other states stays the same, that state's number of representatives will stay the same because the total number cannot go above 435.
Additionally, because each state is guaranteed at least one member in the House of Representatives, and the number of votes a state gets in the Electoral College is Members of the House plus members in the Senate, at a minimum, each state gets three electoral votes.
This means that larger states get screwed.
To use two examples:
The state of Montana has 1 member of the House, and so has 3 Electoral votes. Montana has a population of a little over a million, so essentially, for every 333,333 people, Montana gets 1 electoral vote.
Alternatively, New York has 27 members of the house, and so has 29 Electoral votes. New York has a population of 19.75 million people, so essentially, for every 681,000 people, New York gets 1 electoral vote.
Conclusion:
A person's vote in Montana is worth about twice as much as a person's in New York.
The Constitutionally mandated minimum number of members in the House totally screws up the Electoral College.
Edited to add:
I wonder what would happen if the Electoral College was based on just the number of House members a state has, instead of House plus Senate. Under the new system, Montana would only have 1 EC vote instead of 3 while New York goes from 29 to 27, which is more proportionally fair.
Why is there a cap, though? Is that the maximum number of human brains that can be controlled at once by one subterranean lizardman? Because I feel like they could just get an extra lizardman pretty easily.
But seriously, is there any non-historical reason for a cap? The only ones I can think of are pretty trivially solved by the microphones and cameras that they should already have.
It is my understanding that originally you voted directly for the electors. When you looked at the ballot, George Washington's name wasn't on there. You voted for the person from your area who you actually knew who was going to travel to Washington and join the Electoral College in person. At what point did it change, and why? Or am I wrong, and it was never that way?
The Constitutionally mandated minimum number of members in the House totally screws up the Electoral College.
To pick a nit: it doesn't "screw it up," it's explicitly designed that way in order to give amplified voice to lower-population states.
The House of Representatives cap royally fucks the larger states, because it artificially constrains our electoral vote count.
Since electoral votes are essentially a fiction now, and since many states bind electors to all vote for the winner in the state, I see no reason to not uncap the electoral vote count for the purposes of national elections. Ditch the physical electors and do math.
The Constitutionally mandated minimum number of members in the House totally screws up the Electoral College.
To pick a nit: it doesn't "screw it up," it's explicitly designed that way in order to give amplified voice to lower-population states.
The House of Representatives cap royally fucks the larger states, because it artificially constrains our electoral vote count.
Since electoral votes are essentially a fiction now, and since many states bind electors to all vote for the winner in the state, I see no reason to not uncap the electoral vote count for the purposes of national elections. Ditch the physical electors and do math.
It's not just that the House royally screws the larger states because it artificially constrains our electoral vote count, it's that, at a minimum, each state gets 3 electoral votes (1 House + 2 Senate), regardless of size.
In order to solve this problem, we should uncap the electoral vote count for national elections and ditch the requirement to count the number of senators in determining electoral college votes.
Hypothetical Question Time:
Suppose, the entire country of Canada joins the US. Since this is an influx of entirely new people to the US, would the number of House members go up past 435, or would the number of House members just get reapportioned so that larger states like NY get screwed even more?
In order to solve this problem, we should uncap the electoral vote count for national elections and ditch the requirement to count the number of senators in determining electoral college votes.
Mathematically, how does what you're describing differ from doing away with the electoral college entirely and having the pres race decided based solely on popular vote? I guess because the electoral college would still be a symbolic layer of defense against the masses screwing themselves by choosing a popular but unqualified individual?
I guess because the electoral college would still be a symbolic layer of defense against the masses screwing themselves by choosing a popular but unqualified individual?
I guess because the electoral college would still be a symbolic layer of defense against the masses screwing themselves by choosing a popular but unqualified individual?
Cause that worked so well this last go round.
Deefffiiinitely not sayin' it actually works. Just looking for clarification on jabrams007's suggestion and how it differs from doing away with the EC.
I guess because the electoral college would still be a symbolic layer of defense against the masses screwing themselves by choosing a popular but unqualified individual?
Cause that worked so well this last go round.
Deefffiiinitely not sayin' it actually works. Just looking for clarification on jabrams007's suggestion and how it differs from doing away with the EC.
Yes, like you wrote, under my suggestion, the Electoral College would be mostly a symbolic layer with the ability to still override the popular vote in an extreme emergency.
That's also why I wouldn't just get rid of the Senate entirely. I'm trying to balance my desire to have a more representative and fairer presidential election, where the president is chosen by a majority of the voters, with my fear of the tyranny of that same majority.
In order to solve this problem, we should uncap the electoral vote count for national elections and ditch the requirement to count the number of senators in determining electoral college votes.
Mathematically, how does what you're describing differ from doing away with the electoral college entirely and having the pres race decided based solely on popular vote? I guess because the electoral college would still be a symbolic layer of defense against the masses screwing themselves by choosing a popular but unqualified individual?
If the Electors certify Trump then the Electoral College is completely useless in that regard.
In order to solve this problem, we should uncap the electoral vote count for national elections and ditch the requirement to count the number of senators in determining electoral college votes.
Mathematically, how does what you're describing differ from doing away with the electoral college entirely and having the pres race decided based solely on popular vote? I guess because the electoral college would still be a symbolic layer of defense against the masses screwing themselves by choosing a popular but unqualified individual?
If the Electors certify Trump then the Electoral College is completely useless in that regard.
Again, I don't disagree. See my response to George Patches.
Constraining the number of seats in the House is kinda valuable just for the sake of not having to get like a thousand people to all agree with each other. It would also force us to renovate the House chamber every time the Census happens and changes the number of seats.
I brought up the idea of online voting in one my classes last week and someone seemed almost offended by the idea and couldn't wrap their head around the idea of it being secure and easy. I am also pretty sure they were one of those scared of computers types. They also questioned my observation that it would increase millennial voter turn out.
If you want the most egregious examples of Electoral College unfairness, compare Wyoming and Texas. Wyoming has roughly 195,000 people per Elector, whereas Texas has around 709,000 people per Elector.
Changing the number of seats really isn't a big deal; in Australia we've changed the number of seats in our House of Representatives three times in the past nine years. Probably the most notable difference in how we allocate seats for our lower house is that the Australian Electoral Commission handles redistricting (or "redistribution", as the AEC terms it) rather than letting state legislatures do it.
Anyways, here's a quick summary of what I think is broken in the US electoral system:
1. First-past-the-post is stupid. You guys need to stop using it.
2. Redistricting is handled in one of the worst ways it could possibly be handled.
3. The Electoral College has no real purpose in the modern United States. There is already sufficient protection for states' rights in the Constitution (and therefore the judicial branch), and rural areas already receive outsized influence in the Senate; there isn't really a good reason why these factors also need to carry over into the presidency.
,,,under my suggestion, the Electoral College would be mostly a symbolic layer with the ability to still override the popular vote in an extreme emergency.
What about the ability to override the unpopular vote? That's the part I want to see.
Changing the number of seats really isn't a big deal; in Australia we've changed the number of seats in our House of Representatives three times in the past nine years.
Whoops; by past nine years I meant to say past nine elections, starting from the one in 1993.
Comments
80,001 now.
The number of members in the House of Representatives is capped at 435. Essentially this means that if there is a sudden influx of new people to certain states in the US, and the population of the other states stays the same, that state's number of representatives will stay the same because the total number cannot go above 435.
Additionally, because each state is guaranteed at least one member in the House of Representatives, and the number of votes a state gets in the Electoral College is Members of the House plus members in the Senate, at a minimum, each state gets three electoral votes.
This means that larger states get screwed.
To use two examples:
The state of Montana has 1 member of the House, and so has 3 Electoral votes. Montana has a population of a little over a million, so essentially, for every 333,333 people, Montana gets 1 electoral vote.
Alternatively, New York has 27 members of the house, and so has 29 Electoral votes. New York has a population of 19.75 million people, so essentially, for every 681,000 people, New York gets 1 electoral vote.
Conclusion:
A person's vote in Montana is worth about twice as much as a person's in New York.
The Constitutionally mandated minimum number of members in the House totally screws up the Electoral College.
Edited to add:
I wonder what would happen if the Electoral College was based on just the number of House members a state has, instead of House plus Senate. Under the new system, Montana would only have 1 EC vote instead of 3 while New York goes from 29 to 27, which is more proportionally fair.
Exactly, that is the giant flaw that makes the EC increasingly problematic.
But seriously, is there any non-historical reason for a cap? The only ones I can think of are pretty trivially solved by the microphones and cameras that they should already have.
The House of Representatives cap royally fucks the larger states, because it artificially constrains our electoral vote count.
Since electoral votes are essentially a fiction now, and since many states bind electors to all vote for the winner in the state, I see no reason to not uncap the electoral vote count for the purposes of national elections. Ditch the physical electors and do math.
In order to solve this problem, we should uncap the electoral vote count for national elections and ditch the requirement to count the number of senators in determining electoral college votes.
Hypothetical Question Time:
Suppose, the entire country of Canada joins the US. Since this is an influx of entirely new people to the US, would the number of House members go up past 435, or would the number of House members just get reapportioned so that larger states like NY get screwed even more?
Nothing to see here.
That's also why I wouldn't just get rid of the Senate entirely. I'm trying to balance my desire to have a more representative and fairer presidential election, where the president is chosen by a majority of the voters, with my fear of the tyranny of that same majority.
This video explains why it's a bad idea quite succinctly.
Changing the number of seats really isn't a big deal; in Australia we've changed the number of seats in our House of Representatives three times in the past nine years. Probably the most notable difference in how we allocate seats for our lower house is that the Australian Electoral Commission handles redistricting (or "redistribution", as the AEC terms it) rather than letting state legislatures do it.
1. First-past-the-post is stupid. You guys need to stop using it.
2. Redistricting is handled in one of the worst ways it could possibly be handled.
3. The Electoral College has no real purpose in the modern United States. There is already sufficient protection for states' rights in the Constitution (and therefore the judicial branch), and rural areas already receive outsized influence in the Senate; there isn't really a good reason why these factors also need to carry over into the presidency.