the electoral college a middle ground

[Lukaris]

Yeah, the constitution hits a few flat notes.

Then support calling for a constitutional convention for a change.

 

[Desk trauma]

Then support calling for a constitutional convention for a change.

Nah. Not going to waste the effort.

 

[Pommer]

We could amend the Congressional Reapportionment Act of 1929 so that instead of needing 270 Electoral College votes being needed to secure the Presidency, there’d be in the neighborhood of 1200-1500 votes.

Forming a electoral consensus at such numbers would force candidates to the MIDDLE.

 

[JSRG]

We could amend the Congressional Reapportionment Act of 1929 so that instead of needing 270 Electoral College votes being needed to secure the Presidency, there’d be in the neighborhood of 1200-1500 votes.

Forming a electoral consensus at such numbers would force candidates to the MIDDLE.

I don't see how this would have a real effect. You'd need to get a lot more electors to win, but states would have a lot more electors. Suppose every state had 6 times the number of electors; it would make no difference in the presidential election, because we'd still have the same ratio. Having to win 270 out of 538 is really no different than having to win 1620 out of 3228 because the ratios are the same (well, technically there's a slight difference, as one only has to win 1615 out of 3228... but this is a tiny difference).

To be fair, an increase in the size of congress wouldn't give all states an equal multiplication, as there's a considerable discrepancy in how many people each representative represents based on states. California's representatives each represent about 750,000 people each, compared to Wyoming's representative representing 576,851. The idea of the Wyoming Rule is to increase the number of representatives to 543 so that each state would have their representatives representing about the same number of people as in other states. This would increase the number of representatives of some states, but the smaller states wouldn't get an increase (the point is, after all, to try to make things more equal).

Still, even with increases being a little uneven, an increase of the size of the electoral college to 1200-1500 (which would be done by increasing the size of the House of Representatives to that level, as the number of electors for each state is equal to their number of representatives plus senators) would still have no real effect that I see of forcing candidates to the middle because the basic ratios would be about the same. Getting 601 representatives out of 1200 isn't really any harder than getting 270 out of 542.

That said, the Congressional Reapportionment Act should be amended to increase the size of congress for a different reason: There is an absolutely ridiculously high ratio of constituents to representatives right now. The average representative in congress has 747,000 constituents. Let's compare how the United States does in this area compared to other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Source: The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives | American Academy of Arts and Sciences

The United States's ratio is about three times that of the next country in the list, Japan. Granted, the US pales in comparison to India (India's ratio is 2.6 million people per representatives, more than three times that of the United States, though it isn't on the graph as it isn't in the OECD), but the ratio is still absurd.

It's also one of the reasons why money matters so much in politics. A candidate can't personally reach over 7000,000 people. So instead of trying to do that, they spend their time getting the money so they can do things like run ads to reach you (even if it's only in short 30-second chunks). The lower the ratio is, it seems to me, the more you'd be able to get money out of politics because money matters a lot less.

Now, let us be fair. The United States also has a much bigger population than any other country on that chart; heck, the only countries that have a higher population are India and China. So it having a higher ratio than others does make some sense. But that doesn't explain why the United States with its enormous population has fewer members in its congress than countries with smaller populations. Heck, the congress building can, as I understand it, hold about 1,725 people without needing major renovations. (according to this, at least; as a disclaimer, it's behind a paywall so I can't read it, but someone who linked to it said it claimed you could have 1,725 people in it). An increase to something like you suggested, 1200-1500 would therefore be feasible. Surely the United States with its giant population can have congress at least as large as Germany's (736), the largest congress in the world that's actually democratic (the actual largest congress period is China with 2,997).

One considerable downside I can see to this, though, is that it might have the effect of making gerrymandering even easier. And in practicality if congress hasn't bothered to do it for the last century or so, I'm not sure what would make it finally get around to it now.

 

[johansen]

Just like people don't actually have a right to farm subsidies, federal welfare to red states, agricultural technology, or medical services they travel to in nearby large population centers. Not to mention internet access. It goes both ways, be careful what this sort of "we aren't hurting the people we need to be hurting" type of zero-sum thinking.

just recently in my state, we have semi public internet infrastructure, and the rules were changed:
if i pay money to get fiber out to my house, and other people hook up to it.. i'm not getting paid back. in the past, there were ways to get money back from "my" public infrastructure investment, once other people hooked up to it. I suspect a few bad apples (lawsuits) ruined it for everyone.

(however, if i get my neigbors to get onboard with everything, we can split the cost and get a 0 (or maybe its the fed funds rate) percent infrastructure loan from the federal government for 20 years). was this rule change fair? who benefits? hmm...

regarding my comment: its not zero sum. its how the legal system works. it has checks and balances, but without people becoming aware of the problem, mismanagement and unfair stuff in one area can persist for 100 years (as it has with water rights in the west), before its found out and done away with. just look at how you can't actually hold a public servant personally accountable!

in my hometown, the public utility wants to run a more costly, longer transmission line through a wetland.. not because they have to go that route, there is a shorter, non wetland, better redundant path that's cheaper. but they want/need to do it, to set a precedent to allow them in the future to run a power line through a wetland. because.. in the future they will have to.

a friend of mine could probably prove this is their motivation, and sue them for mismanagement of public funds, instead they try to censor him, and its not worth his time to argue.

there is literally no end, to the amount of theft, waste, fraud, and abuse of public funds in america.

I would put our tax dollars at 25% effectiveness at accomplishing anything good. and unfortunately the bad outweighs the good.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

There has been a lot of stink in recent years about the electoral college being what decides who is president. What if all states did it like ME and NE that is to say that the votes may be split based on how each district voted. In this way each vote would count without the people in the cities having too much control.

It's up to each state to decide how its electoral votes are apportioned. So far only those two have adopted a more proportional method. Other states have the right to follow suit, but have declined to do so.

 

[Pommer]

Suppose every state had 6 times the number of electors; it would make no difference in the presidential election, because we'd still have the same ratio.

But because there’s more electors to go-around, each person’s ballot becomes more powerful, thereby positively-reenforcing the voter to return and make their voices heard again, at the next election.

Pockets of red or blue that got overlooked might get a say?

 

[Pommer]

I don't see how this would have a real effect. You'd need to get a lot more electors to win, but states would have a lot more electors. Suppose every state had 6 times the number of electors; it would make no difference in the presidential election, because we'd still have the same ratio. Having to win 270 out of 538 is really no different than having to win 1620 out of 3228 because the ratios are the same (well, technically there's a slight difference, as one only has to win 1615 out of 3228... but this is a tiny difference).

To be fair, an increase in the size of congress wouldn't give all states an equal multiplication, as there's a considerable discrepancy in how many people each representative represents based on states. California's representatives each represent about 750,000 people each, compared to Wyoming's representative representing 576,851. The idea of the Wyoming Rule is to increase the number of representatives to 543 so that each state would have their representatives representing about the same number of people as in other states. This would increase the number of representatives of some states, but the smaller states wouldn't get an increase (the point is, after all, to try to make things more equal).

Still, even with increases being a little uneven, an increase of the size of the electoral college to 1200-1500 (which would be done by increasing the size of the House of Representatives to that level, as the number of electors for each state is equal to their number of representatives plus senators) would still have no real effect that I see of forcing candidates to the middle because the basic ratios would be about the same. Getting 601 representatives out of 1200 isn't really any harder than getting 270 out of 542.

That said, the Congressional Reapportionment Act should be amended to increase the size of congress for a different reason: There is an absolutely ridiculously high ratio of constituents to representatives right now. The average representative in congress has 747,000 constituents. Let's compare how the United States does in this area compared to other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:
View attachment 341061Source: The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives | American Academy of Arts and Sciences

The United States's ratio is about three times that of the next country in the list, Japan. Granted, the US pales in comparison to India (India's ratio is 2.6 million people per representatives, more than three times that of the United States, though it isn't on the graph as it isn't in the OECD), but the ratio is still absurd.

It's also one of the reasons why money matters so much in politics. A candidate can't personally reach over 7000,000 people. So instead of trying to do that, they spend their time getting the money so they can do things like run ads to reach you (even if it's only in short 30-second chunks). The lower the ratio is, it seems to me, the more you'd be able to get money out of politics because money matters a lot less.

Now, let us be fair. The United States also has a much bigger population than any other country on that chart; heck, the only countries that have a higher population are India and China. So it having a higher ratio than others does make some sense. But that doesn't explain why the United States with its enormous population has fewer members in its congress than countries with smaller populations. Heck, the congress building can, as I understand it, hold about 1,725 people without needing major renovations. (according to this, at least; as a disclaimer, it's behind a paywall so I can't read it, but someone who linked to it said it claimed you could have 1,725 people in it). An increase to something like you suggested, 1200-1500 would therefore be feasible. Surely the United States with its giant population can have congress at least as large as Germany's (736), the largest congress in the world that's actually democratic (the actual largest congress period is China with 2,997).

One considerable downside I can see to this, though, is that it might have the effect of making gerrymandering even easier. And in practicality if congress hasn't bothered to do it for the last century or so, I'm not sure what would make it finally get around to it now.

I didn’t want you to think I’d short-shrifted your fine post, it was a pleasure to peruse.

 

[JSRG]

But because there’s more electors to go-around, each person’s ballot becomes more powerful, thereby positively-reenforcing the voter to return and make their voices heard again, at the next election.

Pockets of red or blue that got overlooked might get a say?

But more electors doesn't make anyone's ballot more powerful, because all the states would be getting about the same increase, percentage-wise, in number of electors. It'd be like making goals in Soccer/Football be worth 6 points instead of 1... it doesn't make any difference, because all of the goals are still worth the same amount. You might make the numbers bigger but it'd have no effect on the game. And that's the same thing with simply increasing the number of electors. Because they'd be increased in all states equally (or close to equally), it doesn't change the power of anyone's individual ballot.

 

[Lukaris]

Nah. Not going to waste the effort.

I was thinking of something along the line of like sending an e-mail to an elected official. Most people can do little more & whatever manifests.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Why should we have control of our lives and rights?

why should people in he country not have control over our rights and life? This is the issue. The lifestyle is different and really the cities could not be there without the country. In fact, until the late 18 or early 1900s more people lived in rural areas than urban. It takes both for society to run.

 

[Desk trauma]

why should people in he country not have control over our rights and life? This is the issue.

It's a made up issue.

The lifestyle is different and really the cities could not be there without the country.

Nor could those in the rural areas be there without the rest of the county. Living in a rural area or working in agriculture does not mean you are an off grid survivalist with no need of wider society or its infrastructure.

In fact, until the late 18 or early 1900s more people lived in rural areas than urban. It takes both for society to run.

Yet you keep on talking about the rural areas cutting off the places where the majority of the population live as if its an option but not the other way around for some reason. Cut off the electricity, fuel and diabetes drugs to rural areas from the industrialized areas that make such things and farmers would find out awful fast how not self sufficient they are.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It's a made up issue.



Nor could those in the rural areas be there without the rest of the county. Living in a rural area or working in agriculture does not mean you are an off grid survivalist with no need of wider society or its infrastructure.


Yet you keep on talking about the rural areas cutting off the places where the majority of the population live as if its an option but not the other way around for some reason. Cut off the electricity, fuel and diabetes drugs to rural areas from the industrialized areas that make such things and farmers would find out awful fast how not self sufficient they are.

Then why is it that it worked so well for so long. There were years and years where guess what people did it the sure enough labor intentive way Machines make things easier, but it is not like they have always been there.

 

[Desk trauma]

Then why is it that it worked so well for so long. There were years and years where guess what people did it the sure enough labor intentive way

They are not doing so now nor are we capable of sustaining our population with that level of technology.

Machines make things easier, but it is not like they have always been there.

They are here now, not going anywhere, and are required to maintain our population and standard of living, including that of farmers and rural residents. Yet you want people to live in fear of the farmers going glat/amish if they do not get their way as if they are any more self sufficient than the rest of society. Perhaps the rural folk should live in fear of the city folk cutting off their diabetes drugs?

 

[dogs4thewin]

They are not doing so now nor are we capable of sustaining our population with that level of technology.


They are here now, not going anywhere, and are required to maintain our population and standard of living, including that of farmers and rural residents. Yet you want people to live in fear of the farmers going glat/amish if they do not get their way as if they are any more self sufficient than the rest of society. Perhaps the rural folk should live in fear of the city folk cutting off their diabetes drugs?

Let me asks you this if the machines went out who would have an easier time ( in most cases) In terms of the very basics? How many city folks have prepared food for example and no I do not mean cooking it,

 

[Desk trauma]

Let me asks you this if the machines went out who would have an easier time ( in most cases) In terms of the very basics? How many city folks have prepared food for example and no I do not mean cooking it,

Logistics fail and everyone starts to go hungry in a week.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Logistics fail and everyone starts to go hungry in a week.

Logistics? How? The people who grow, raise and hunt most of everything they eat would not really have much logistics to do?

 

[Desk trauma]

Logistics?

Yes, fuel, food, transportation of goods.

The people who grow, raise and hunt most of everything they eat would not really have much logistics to do?

They are also a fraction of a percent of the population, even in rural areas regardless of how people imagine themselves. Keeping a garden in the summer and shooting a deer or two does not make you independent from society and able to shut down the monocrop farm to go galt to spite the city folk for not giving you your way.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yes, fuel, food, transportation of goods.

They are also a fraction of a percent of the population, even in rural areas regardless of how people imagine themselves.

Again, who though would have an easier time if it came to that? The people who can put up food if they needed to hunt, fish and the like or the people who often do not know much about that?

 

[Desk trauma]

Again, who though would have an easier time if it came to that? The people who can put up food if they needed to hunt, fish and the like or the people who often do not know much about that?

Again, those in the country are just as dependent as us clearly morally inferior city folk, logistics fail and they starve like anyone else.