Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
336 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [14] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Fixing the Electoral college WITHOUT a constitutional amendment. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: Majority_Planning [+] [View All]
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

The Apportionment Act of 1911 (Pub.L. 62–5, 37 Stat. 13) was an apportionment bill passed by the United States Congress on August 8, 1911.

It set the rules which result in 435 representatives.

Unfortunately, it gives small states higher representation in the House and in the Electoral college than they merit.

The next time democrats are in power, they should change the representation limits to a lower number of citizens per representative. The democratic government we set up in Iraq required 1 representative per 100,000 citizens.

If that were put in place, California would have 382 electoral votes while Wyoming would have 7 electoral votes. Small states would retain their advantage in the senate but their undue influence on the electoral college (currently resulting in the election of a president who lost the popular vote by at least 2 million votes).

I know some of the conservative posters are mostly going to rage, but democratic posters please spread the idea around. I think it will result in a more democratic (small d), and representative country.

Our current system gives small states both an advantage in the senate AND in the house AND in the presidential elections. It's anti-democratic and unrepresentative. While it may be fun to win short term, it may result in many bad results in the long term when the government isn't in sync with the people.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Several states have already adopted a voting block law that would take effect if enough states adopt the same law. Essentially it says that the agreeing states will cast all their electoral ballots for whichever candidate wins the nationwide popular vote. But only if enough states have adopted the law to create a voting block large enough to win the election (i.e. 270 votes).

No constitutional amendment necessary.

///edit///

Here's a wiki article on the law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Aventura
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Yeah I'm not conservative but I completely disagree with your attack on the electoral college. Rather than assume all the non-raging "good guys" agree with you, a more interesting thread might consist of fleshing out your argument. WHY should we be more democratic? In a certain light isn't the ass-clown we have as president the result of too much democracy? The framers of the constitution (wisely) didn't intend for the primaries to be a democratic process. You're looking behind the wrong door IMO.
5 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
There are serious logistical and social problems with having a legislative body of over 3000 members. I think 435 already strains the ability formembers to know each other and have a sense of collegiality across the aisles. With such a large body, I'd expect the atmosphere to become even more balkanized and partisan.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
None of your business

Pennsylvania
msg tools
mb
Wow you guys are really crybabies. All of this whining about the electoral college because Donald Trump won the presidency. Pathetic...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
On a practical, cynical level, there's also the fact that representatives would be voting to greater reduce their individual power. Even if it might benefit their party in the Presidential election now and again, that's not something that representatives are going to be eager to vote for (unlike limiting the House to 435 members, which secured power for existing representatives).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmb
verandi wrote:

Yeah I'm not conservative but I completely disagree with your attack on the electoral college. Rather than assume all the non-raging "good guys" agree with you, a more interesting thread might consist of fleshing out your argument. WHY should we be more democratic? In a certain light isn't the ass-clown we have as president the result of too much democracy? The framers of the constitution (wisely) didn't intend for the primaries to be a democratic process. You're looking behind the wrong door IMO.


(bold mine)
First of all, yeah, you got me. Why would we want a more representative government?

Second, the recent election election is the opposite of what you infer; through the EC not representing the actual population and the low turnout, we had a guy elected by a minority of the actual votes and by a tiny minority of the citizens.

Third, Who gives a fuck what the founding fathers thought? Many of them were slaveowners trying to make sure their own power was preserved along with their peculiar institution.
13 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:

The Apportionment Act of 1911 (Pub.L. 62–5, 37 Stat. 13) was an apportionment bill passed by the United States Congress on August 8, 1911.

It set the rules which result in 435 representatives.


If that were put in place, California would have 382 electoral votes while Wyoming would have 7 electoral votes.


So you took the largest state, and the smallest state, and that's all you used? Do all of the states now and let's see the totals.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
InfinityReborn wrote:
Wow you guys are really crybabies. All of this whining about the electoral college because Donald Trump won the presidency. Pathetic...


Douche.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
None of your business

Pennsylvania
msg tools
mb
mrspank wrote:
InfinityReborn wrote:
Wow you guys are really crybabies. All of this whining about the electoral college because Donald Trump won the presidency. Pathetic...


Douche.


Spoiled brat.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think California should voluntarily split up their electoral college votes and show the country just how liberal we are!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bartosh

Sunnyvale
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
I think California should voluntarily split up their electoral college votes and show the country just how liberal we are!


If everyone in the nation is willing to get on board and do the same, I'm all for CA splitting its vote. As is, though, I'm a gamer. I'm not further nerfing my influence without some reciprocation, and I'm not particularly convinced of people being willing to follow through in a meaningful way after the advantage they would get out of this.

InfinityReborn wrote:
Wow you guys are really crybabies. All of this whining about the electoral college because Donald Trump won the presidency. Pathetic...


You do know this isn't, like, a new complaint, right? Electoral College stuff flares up whenever the popular vote loses to the EC.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
So, just one nitpick--California is 50x more influential than Wyoming? That will never fly. No way, no how. Never in my life time.


except in real life this happens to be the case in basically every possible respect, and also Mac's proposed fix still lets Wyoming have disproportionate political power in the Senate

basically it's always the same: "small states should have more power because REASONS"
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:

The Apportionment Act of 1911 (Pub.L. 62–5, 37 Stat. 13) was an apportionment bill passed by the United States Congress on August 8, 1911.

It set the rules which result in 435 representatives.

Unfortunately, it gives small states higher representation in the House and in the Electoral college than they merit.

The next time democrats are in power, they should change the representation limits to a lower number of citizens per representative. The democratic government we set up in Iraq required 1 representative per 100,000 citizens.

If that were put in place, California would have 382 electoral votes while Wyoming would have 7 electoral votes. Small states would retain their advantage in the senate but their undue influence on the electoral college (currently resulting in the election of a president who lost the popular vote by at least 2 million votes).

I know some of the conservative posters are mostly going to rage, but democratic posters please spread the idea around. I think it will result in a more democratic (small d), and representative country.

Our current system gives small states both an advantage in the senate AND in the house AND in the presidential elections. It's anti-democratic and unrepresentative. While it may be fun to win short term, it may result in many bad results in the long term when the government isn't in sync with the people.


So, just one nitpick--California is 50x more influential than Wyoming? That will never fly. No way, no how. Never in my life time.


It has 78 times the population. Why shouldn't it have 50x the representation in at least one house?

Why should 578,000 citizens be overrepresented in the Senate, house, and presidential branch of government compared to 38,000,000 citizens?
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
So, just one nitpick--California is 50x more influential than Wyoming? That will never fly. No way, no how. Never in my life time.


except in real life this happens to be the case in basically every possible respect, and also Mac's proposed fix still lets Wyoming have disproportionate political power in the Senate

basically it's always the same: "small states should have more power because REASONS"


Our current system can't be changed with out revolution, constitutional convention, or constitutional amendment to reduce the power of tiny states in the Senate but this proposal requires none of those and corrects an imbalance in the house and executive branch.

I think if adopted we SHOULD stop winner take all electoral voting. The votes should be apportioned by the popular vote in each of the state's. So about a third of California EC votes would become Republican and a few would be even be libertarian and green. Same for texas and new york.

California would matter again to republicans and democrats. No state would have a safe majority. Every vote in every state would matter.

Even wyoming would matter because 1 to 2 of those 7 votes would be at stake.

And the house would be strongly identified with their constituents, harder to bribe, and easier to run. A candidate can actually reach 100,000 voters. And probably only 70,000 of those would be voting. The rest would be children.

Maybe you could allocate 1 to 100k adults. That would cut California to about 240 and Wyoming to about 5.





3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Adelson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Well, I see the otherness of being other is otherwise contraindicated
badge
Who cares where it came from or whether it's correct or not? Certainly not me
Avatar
mbmb
maxo-texas wrote:


Why should 578,000 citizens be overrepresented in the Senate, house, and presidential branch of government compared to 38,000,000 citizens?


Because Wyoming has so much bentonite, obviously.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
I think California should voluntarily split up their electoral college votes and show the country just how liberal we are!

Much smarter to split CA up into 6 states, 5 of which would favor the Democrats, so that the Democrats would gain 6 senators.

CA also was dumb enough to create a non partisan method of drawing districts. Someone needs to create a proposition to change it back to a partisan method so that the Dems pick up another 5 or 10 members in the House as well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I think California should voluntarily split up their electoral college votes and show the country just how liberal we are!

Much smarter to split CA up into 6 states, 5 of which would favor the Democrats, so that the Democrats would gain 6 senators.

CA also was dumb enough to create a non partisan method of drawing districts. Someone needs to create a proposition to change it back to a partisan method so that the Dems pick up another 5 or 10 members in the House as well.


That's anti democratic. I'd prefer better representation vs better twisting of the rules.

And California can't legally split up without a constitutional amendment so that's off topic and a nonsyarter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dwayne Hendrickson
United States
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
So, just one nitpick--California is 50x more influential than Wyoming? That will never fly. No way, no how. Never in my life time.


except in real life this happens to be the case in basically every possible respect, and also Mac's proposed fix still lets Wyoming have disproportionate political power in the Senate

basically it's always the same: "small states should have more power because REASONS"


Our current system can't be changed with out revolution, constitutional convention, or constitutional amendment to reduce the power of tiny states in the Senate but this proposal requires none of those and corrects an imbalance in the house and executive branch.

I think if adopted we SHOULD stop winner take all electoral voting. The votes should be apportioned by the popular vote in each of the state's. So about a third of California EC votes would become Republican and a few would be even be libertarian and green. Same for texas and new york.

California would matter again to republicans and democrats. No state would have a safe majority. Every vote in every state would matter.

Even wyoming would matter because 1 to 2 of those 7 votes would be at stake.

And the house would be strongly identified with their constituents, harder to bribe, and easier to run. A candidate can actually reach 100,000 voters. And probably only 70,000 of those would be voting. The rest would be children.

Maybe you could allocate 1 to 100k adults. That would cut California to about 240 and stoning to about 5.







This is how it was originally set up, with electors being chosen by each district. Eventually, only two states decided to remain that way, Nebraska and Maine. Going back to the district appropriation would, in my mind, help balance out the influence each state could have. There might be more swing states (or swing districts). But this is up to the States to decide how to handle their Electors. If you want it changed, start getting your state laws changed.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
sfox wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I think California should voluntarily split up their electoral college votes and show the country just how liberal we are!

Much smarter to split CA up into 6 states, 5 of which would favor the Democrats, so that the Democrats would gain 6 senators.

CA also was dumb enough to create a non partisan method of drawing districts. Someone needs to create a proposition to change it back to a partisan method so that the Dems pick up another 5 or 10 members in the House as well.


That's anti democratic. I'd prefer better representation vs better twisting of the rules.

And California can't legally split up without a constitutional amendment so that's off topic and a nonsyarter.


psst, think green.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's over, Mack.

Get back to hating your Republican gamer buddies.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tstone wrote:
It's over, Mack.

Get back to hating your Republican gamer buddies.


Perhaps taunting isn't the best approach here? Just a thought.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mrspank wrote:
tstone wrote:
It's over, Mack.

Get back to hating your Republican gamer buddies.


Perhaps taunting isn't the best approach here? Just a thought.


No. The bitter tears are delicious.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
sfox wrote:
ironcates wrote:
I think California should voluntarily split up their electoral college votes and show the country just how liberal we are!

Much smarter to split CA up into 6 states, 5 of which would favor the Democrats, so that the Democrats would gain 6 senators.

CA also was dumb enough to create a non partisan method of drawing districts. Someone needs to create a proposition to change it back to a partisan method so that the Dems pick up another 5 or 10 members in the House as well.


That's anti democratic. I'd prefer better representation vs better twisting of the rules.

And California can't legally split up without a constitutional amendment so that's off topic and a nonsyarter.

No, that is completely wrong. A state can split up with a 50% vote of the Senate and a 50% vote of their state legislature. By far the easiest way to fix the problem. All this was hashed over a few years back when there was a proposal to split up CA. Didn't go anywhere obviously, but the legal roadblocks are pretty simple. Congress has all the power it needs to add new states to the nation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tstone wrote:
mrspank wrote:
tstone wrote:
It's over, Mack.

Get back to hating your Republican gamer buddies.


Perhaps taunting isn't the best approach here? Just a thought.


No. The bitter tears are delicious.


Just remember, what goes around comes around.

Also, Proverbs 24:17.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [14] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.