General Discussion

treestar

(82,383 posts)

105. Very good, that is convincing

Mon Jan 9, 2017, 02:03 PM

Jan 2017

Nothing in the Constitution requires the winner-take-all method. Obviously a couple of states have modified that - Maine and Nebraska.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

121 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lifting the 435 seat limit on the size of the U.S. House would make the Electoral College fairer. [View all] Ken Burch Jan 2017 OP

I've thought about that too. Right now it probably can't be done because of the makeup of shraby Jan 2017 #1

We should have it in the platform and require all congressional candidates to pledge to support it. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #2

You have something there. Maybe the ACLU could be persuaded? If not, a high profile shraby Jan 2017 #3

AND...we could argue an "original intent" case. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #4

If we are to stick with our current system it is the right thing to do ... etherealtruth Jan 2017 #5

Why would the Republicans do that? Adrahil Jan 2017 #6

We can use this as a way of mobilizing opposition to them and getting them out. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #15

I sure hope so. The pessimist in me says it's too late. They've already stacked the deck.... Adrahil Jan 2017 #29

You'd probably see bipartisan opposition in Congress Lurks Often Jan 2017 #7

something has to be done TDale313 Jan 2017 #17

This is exactly why this country was set up the way it was Lurks Often Jan 2017 #18

the Country was set up to provide equal representation and two Senators per state rufus dog Jan 2017 #21

It was also set up so that no one state had more influence then others Lurks Often Jan 2017 #58

The Senate is the body that is to be equally representative of all states Bettie Jan 2017 #116

No, it's why the senate exists LisiFFXV Jan 2017 #117

should california threaten secession to abolish the EC? eniwetok Jan 2017 #19

No they shouldn't NobodyHere Jan 2017 #35

I beg to differ... eniwetok Jan 2017 #53

They have no chance of successfully seceding. NobodyHere Jan 2017 #68

I don't agree that this would lead to war... eniwetok Jan 2017 #72

Nobody cares about the "moral" argument NobodyHere Jan 2017 #73

No, YOU don't care about the moral argument... eniwetok Jan 2017 #74

I don't think the system is going to be changed anytime soon NobodyHere Jan 2017 #77

The fact is, a Republican living in Russia is behind the CalExit plan. KittyWampus Jan 2017 #109

strawman! eniwetok Jan 2017 #112

Why would they be basically irrelevant? treestar Jan 2017 #66

Because CA as well as the other half dozen most popular states Lurks Often Jan 2017 #78

Why do people say that? treestar Jan 2017 #79

Then amend the Consitution and get 1 person and 1 vote Lurks Often Jan 2017 #88

the limit still needs to be lifted to allow them equal representation sarah FAILIN Jan 2017 #94

It's not going to happen anytime soon. Lurks Often Jan 2017 #95

It may not but it needs to happen sarah FAILIN Jan 2017 #96

Neither was the vote for women when it was first conceived treestar Jan 2017 #104

I think it should be tried treestar Jan 2017 #103

Great idea. Impossible in this congress. MineralMan Jan 2017 #8

Proposing this would be a WAY to help get Congress back. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #14

if you want democracy... then the entire system needs reform eniwetok Jan 2017 #20

this is the best plan here Horse with no Name Jan 2017 #9

and if we don't do that Horse with no Name Jan 2017 #10

the problem isn't taxes... it's representation eniwetok Jan 2017 #23

I understand Horse with no Name Jan 2017 #64

this is why we need a constitutional crisis... eniwetok Jan 2017 #65

But we can use the idea to GAIN support and mobilize voters. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #13

British parliament has 650 members, population of the UK octoberlib Jan 2017 #11

I've read that the House should have more than 1000 members by now to be fair. n/t Turn CO Blue Jan 2017 #12

Dems Are Victims Of A Defective System... eniwetok Jan 2017 #16

Has the enumeration been considered every 10 years? Amimnoch Jan 2017 #22

*Why* would the GOP controlled House want to do this? Crash2Parties Jan 2017 #24

Anything that isn't 1 person 1 vote is inherently unfair TexasBushwhacker Jan 2017 #25

one person one vote is meaningless unless.... eniwetok Jan 2017 #26

Exactly treestar Jan 2017 #67

The country should be ruled TexasBushwhacker Jan 2017 #70

It is unfair but right and proper LisiFFXV Jan 2017 #118

Talk to me again about tyranny TexasBushwhacker Jan 2017 #119

Good idea, Ken! Now we just gotta figure out the political roadmap. emulatorloo Jan 2017 #27

Why? Every house district represents 710,000 plus 2 senator. CK_John Jan 2017 #28

two reasons dsc Jan 2017 #40

That ratio has more than tripled since 1911, what happens... Humanist_Activist Jan 2017 #57

What is the back story on the Apportionment Act? leanforward Jan 2017 #30

How would this end gerrymandering? yallerdawg Jan 2017 #31

Good question. leanforward Jan 2017 #33

Would make it more difficult at least Freddie Jan 2017 #41

Sorry (not) but no. The EC needs to go, among many other things. UTUSN Jan 2017 #32

It's not likely the EC will ever be abolished. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #36

I know you're good-hearted. I'm at a point I have no hope/expectations. UTUSN Jan 2017 #37

I think one representative represents about 700,000 people. milestogo Jan 2017 #34

So, all we need to do is get control of the House and Senate... brooklynite Jan 2017 #38

I favor the interstate treaty/compact for the National popular vote Gothmog Jan 2017 #39

That will be found unconstitutional under the Compact Clause unfortunately Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #45

Really? Gothmog Jan 2017 #59

states cannot enter into binding compacts that have a national impact without approval of Congress Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #75

You are totally wrong Gothmog Jan 2017 #80

You do understand that the rather silly proposal advanced in the OP need congressional approval Gothmog Jan 2017 #82

passing an new Act (when and if we get control back) is MUCH easier than an Amendment to the Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #84

And the National Popular Vote requires neither Gothmog Jan 2017 #87

270 EV's will never sign onto it, see my other posts Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #90

Here is a simplistic explanation that even laypersons should understand Gothmog Jan 2017 #86

I am not changing my mind, and those examples of Compacts did NOT have national ramifications Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #89

I love it when laypersons attempt to understand legal concepts Gothmog Jan 2017 #91

Very good, that is convincing treestar Jan 2017 #105

11 states with 165 electoral votes have already signed on to this plan Gothmog Jan 2017 #106

sure, the easy states signed on... eniwetok Jan 2017 #113

The only alternatives offerred involve getting Congressional republicans to agree Gothmog Jan 2017 #115

Grey is correct about the compact clause eniwetok Jan 2017 #54

Read the case law Gothmog Jan 2017 #60

I'm well aware of the arguments... and I support the Compact eniwetok Jan 2017 #61

California and several states with good AGs have adopted this compact Gothmog Jan 2017 #62

you haven't made the case eniwetok Jan 2017 #69

Read the case law cited or have a lawyer read it and explain it to you. Gothmog Jan 2017 #81

The Wyoming Rule Freddie Jan 2017 #42

I would say keep the ratio static, Wyoming rounded down to nearest 100000 and the.... Humanist_Activist Jan 2017 #43

I don't think a legislative body of 1200 members could ever be functional Bucky Jan 2017 #49

If that's true then the democratic solutions would be breaking up the country... Humanist_Activist Jan 2017 #56

we could sue, saying it is no longer one man one vote using Wyoming as our example. Hamlette Jan 2017 #44

A Wyoming EV is worth 3.76 times more than a California EV Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #46

THIS!!!!!!! ....I have been screaming this for years, long before I joined this board Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #47

in 1787 the Sounders discussed how big the House of Reps should get Bucky Jan 2017 #48

The reverse is even worse, ie. a citizen gets lost in the crush of far too many people Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #50

Good point in general Bucky Jan 2017 #51

I am truly open to alternative suggestions, do you have any? this problem is going to just keep Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #52

The founders weren't always right, to be honest, they were... Humanist_Activist Jan 2017 #55

desirable principles were compromised away.... eniwetok Jan 2017 #63

What about proportional delegates instead of winner-take-all? Buckeye_Democrat Jan 2017 #71

I've supported that as well. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #93

Excellent post... great idea!! Which tells me we'll never do it! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2017 #76

Does anyone really think that Congressional republicans will vote to increase the size of the house Gothmog Jan 2017 #83

You missed the part about challenging the Apportionment Act in court- Ken Burch Jan 2017 #92

Ken-your attempts at legal analysis are amusing Gothmog Jan 2017 #97

I know that, but the Apportionment Act is separate from that. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #99

Ken-your theory is so weak that it is funny Gothmog Jan 2017 #100

The concept of a lawsuit attacking the apportionment act is dumb and would be rejected by the courts Gothmog Jan 2017 #107

Can you give the insulting, personally dismissive thing a rest? Ken Burch Jan 2017 #108

Ken-I deal in fact and not feelings Gothmog Jan 2017 #110

We both know National Popular Vote will never prevail. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #111

No,you are wrong Gothmog Jan 2017 #114

You have no right to talk down to me, or to anyone else. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #120

Ken-your contemplated lawsuit was a very dumb idea and had no chance in the real world Gothmog Jan 2017 #121

The Congressional republicans will never vote to give up their advantage Gothmog Jan 2017 #85

Not to mention Congress. KamaAina Jan 2017 #98

Addendum matt819 Jan 2017 #101

I don't see how the 435 number skews the Electoral College severely. George II Jan 2017 #102