Thread by @theartak, So, you hate the electoral college, and want to see it gone? [...]

So, you hate the electoral college, and want to see it gone? Start with your state.

A thread:

The electoral college is a disaster really for everyone, but getting rid of it isn't easy. It requires a Constitutional amendment (and you will see that introduced soon, I'm sure.) But that's a high hurdle...

It requires ALL of the following:
• A 2/3 vote in favor from the House of Representatives
• A 2/3 vote in favor from the Senate.
• Ratification by 38/50 states (for practical purposes this means legislature approved it)

I think you can see how unlikely that is in the current climate.

BUT, there are loopholes!

The practice that determines how each state awards votes is actually up to the states themselves. This whole winner take all thing in 48 of 50 states? They made it that way.

Maine and Nebraska went different routes, using Congressional districts and statewide votes to represent the Senate seats. But this isn't the only option.

The Constitution is SILENT on anything other than the following:
• # of electors must equal the # of people in the state's Congressional delegation.
• It's up to Congress to pick date electors are chosen and when they meet.
• States shall determine the electors.

So, what am I getting at?

First, we need to eliminate entirely the winner take all system in the 48 remaining states. And that's a job for state legislatures.

Congressional districts is a logical path for this. But it could also be completely different electoral districts (although they would likely end up gerrymandered, I admit) or something else.

Only benefit to winner take all is historical precedent and it makes a state more attractive to visit in theory by candidates. Although in practice, it has the opposite effect.

If it was possible to nab 10 votes in Texas, 20 votes in California, or 5 in Alabama, guarantee that would increase their importance in campaigning.

It also allows underrepresented voices (like, say, Blacks in Mississippi or Republicans in California) immediately to be heard in national politics.

And to be clear, that will be seen by many on both sides as a hurdle, but if you truly care about diversity then you have to take it even when you don't like the result.

But that's just part of the equation. It opens up the field, for sure. And it's a lot easier to implement than an amendment. But there is more Congress can do. Though they won't like it.

Remember how the Constitution says electors must be equal to Congressional delegation size? You want a more representative Electoral College? Change those delegation sizes.

The Senate is set at an equal number of representatives by the Constitution. The House of Representatives is set at 435 members by... What, exactly?

NOT, as it turns out, the Constitution. There is only a few specific requirements in the Constitution regarding House districts: Every state has to have at least 1, and I believe there's a requirement that they can't be for less than 30,000 people--not 100 percent sure on # here

But the number of Representatives is set by a law from the late 1920s. So all it would take to increase the number is a change to that law. Changing a law requires only majority vote in each house and a President willing to sign.

Now, I am not proposing 10,000 Representatives here, but we could easily, with modern technology, do 1500.

The UK, a fraction of our size, has 624 seats in the Commons, IIRC correctly. So why can't we have at least 1000?

Now imagine that, coupled with much more representative split votes by district in the EC. It's not perfect. But it's actually easy enough for, say, a Democratic majority in both houses and a Democrat president to easily implement.

And guess what? Now is a PERFECT time to do this! Why? Because the Census just happened. We are going to reapportion districts anyway! Just instead of reapportioning the 435, let's do it based on population size!

Wow! So easy!

Let's say you end up with a 1200 member house, just for easy math. Add 100 Senators, and you now have 1300 votes. And if we hold to the minimum being 1 Rep per state, DC gets 3 because they get the minimum.

So now you have 1303 votes, split across 50 states, each vote being independent, with (if you follow what NE and ME have done) at most 2 per state being winner take all, so 100 total.

It's not as good as abolishing the EC. But it's SO MUCH BETTER than what you have now, and it can be done without an amendment.

What do we think?

Latest Threads Unrolled: