They will never give it up voluntarily.

Congressional votes and electoral votes should be real numbers reflecting the actual percentage of people they represent and not integers.

That would require the approval of two thirds of the members of both houses of Congress and then ratification from a minimum of 38 of the 50 states. Look at the current make-up of Congress and then look at the electoral map from this month's election and see how likely it would be for that to succeed.

The state with the lowest population (X) gets one congressman. The "value" of each congressional vote would equal (a states's total population) / (the number of congressmen for that state) / X. This formula would hold until the next census of course. The electoral votes would be the same as this plus 2 for the two Senators. This way everyone would be equally represented.

Big cities should have more but most districts are large areas where not many people live.

What are some possible next steps for addressing this inequity?

or a big push for enough states to pass that bypass legislation where they pledge their electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote. Some states are already on board.

Here is the wikipedia explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of 2016, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 electoral votes, which is 30.7% of the total Electoral College and 61.1% of the votes needed to give the compact legal force.

Here is a petition on dailykos to sign:
https://actionsprout.io/39C3FE/initial

It would not require a constitutional amendment. It would not require agreement of all the states but would require agreement of the states with the majority of electoral votes.

The effect of such a compact would make the electoral college largely symbolic and would result in the POTUS being elected through a direct democratic vote.

Go here

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

That should be a huge help. Love my state.

I took the U.S. population and found out the percentage of each State's population of the total (2015 estimates for both). I then multiplied that percentage by the 538 E.C. votes to find out what each state should actually get. In the end, even with the adjustments to state totals, if the state victories by both Clinton and Trump stay the same as they are now, there would be little change in the E.C. total. Trump would still win the E.C. by 305 to 233.

If somewhere like California, which has the highest population (12.2% of the country and should have 66 EC votes) and has an extremely high Democratic constituency who vote, it will skew the popular vote into Hillary's favor. I don't know how (or even if I'm allowed) to post my table, but I have it if you would like it (it's an OpenDocument spreadsheet).

But i imagine trump won a few by a large margin too, although i doubt there are any he won by that large of a NUMBER

The UNITED STATES of America. Not "the United People" of America, or "America", or any such other thing. As much as we don't like to hear it, this nation was not formed as a democracy of all the people of the country, it was, as it is called, an association of united sovereign STATES. The Constitution was written as a pact between these STATES, not of all the people in ALL the states. All the proportionality was geared to the STATES, not the PEOPLE of the collective of states.

I wish people would get this through their heads. We are not, and were never intended to be, a democracy of the people. As much as many would like that to be, it's not. It is a Republic designed around an association of sovereign STATES. The people within those states are not relevant to most of the provisions in the Constitution as to how our government works.

So keep on bitching about unequal representation of PEOPLE, but you are wasting your time. 1 man, 1 vote democracy was never a concept of our Republic. Deal with it.

Last edited Fri Nov 25, 2016, 12:00 AM - Edit history (1)

But the system needs an overhaul.

That's not the point of discussions like this and if you can't see that then well... having a conversation with you is a waste of everyone's time
The point that is being made is 'Why should an area that has more cattle carry greater weight relative to its population?'
This is an issue that is quite relevant, especially given what has happened over the past decade-and-a-half
States that have tiny populations should have the representation relative to their numbers not greater
It is probably time to lay the foundation to change the way the system is governed.
You can reasonable argue that it is likely futile given that there are too many states that benefit from this practice to get an amendment through, but that does NOT make the argument a waste of time anymore than abolishing slavery was irrelevant and a waste of time either because of the number of slave owning states

By the way, thank you for sharing something that a large majority of people here know about the Constitution. Because people point out the inherent foolishness and unfairness of something does not mean they don't know it

It's irrelevant, no matter how much you wish otherwise. But keep pushing for Constitutional amendments. Somebody has to do it, and it will probably make you feel good.

the Code of Hammurabi was good enough for our ancestors, then by God, it's good enough for us. Next thing you know, he / she will be arguing for the divine right of kings.

As long as they vote Democrat, good.

But didn't they give us Reagan?

Be voting for one.

The electoral college could be relegated to a symbolic status through an agreement between the states.

It doesn't need to be abolished, the states could simply change the basis upon which the states assign their electoral votes and voila the electoral college is the anachronism it deserves to be.

And that would again be an agreement among the states. As was intended.

They could also agree to vote for the person whose name is first in alphabetical order. Or the oldest. Or the youngest.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has already been adopted by ten states and DC ...they could have gone with the candidate whose name is first in alphabetical order but they opted to go with the winner of the popular vote. Imagine that.

So for instance a state that voted in large numbers for the candidate that lost the national popular vote would be forced to pledge the delegates to the candidate that actually lost in their state.

For example, Bush won the popular vote over Kerry in 2004. Kerry won California by 1.25 million votes, but the state would be required to assign all of their EC votes to Bush even though California citizens voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

That would make every election unanimous even if the popular vote was extremely close. Not sure a lot of voters would think that was acceptable.

If you agree with the current system, or any system, that does not elect the POTUS based on the will of the people (i.e. the candidate most votes) the change would be very problematic.

If you agree that the POTUS should be elected by a direct democratic vote the electoral college becomes solely a symbolic institution that simply validates the popular vote it is not problematic .... the (then) president elect is elected with X number of votes. the electoral college in a purely symbolic act would simply validate the will of the people.

Ten states (and DC) have enacted the compact. Interestingly the ten are comprised of large democratic voting states .... such as NY, California, Maryland ....

I prefer the will of the people be respected (my candidates will win some and will lose some) and would hardly give a damn about how my state electors would vote in an institution that was anachronism with no power.

Again if you are comfortable or happy with candidates receiving the lion share of the votes and not becoming president the EC would work for you.

I see you did not address either of the points I made

I support the concept of the EC. I don't think a handful of the most populous states should be able to control every election. I would be concerned that candidates might be inclined to pander to those states at the expense of the rest.

The Electoral College has elected just as many Democrats as Republicans over the last hundred years.Changing the rules to favor one point in time might end up working against us someday. Similar to getting rid of the filibuster.

I would be more inclined to support getting electoral votes divided proportionately within each state

....but to your new point ... "we" would always win, if one defines "we" as the American people. My personal choice for president may or may not win. I would have more faith in a president, from either party, that works to support the will of the people than the will of thei party or a few states

In a symbolic vote (to counter your "points" again), electors would be voting for the winner of the popular vote symbolically and its association with states or states votes are irrelevant (my example of the states with the largest number of electors was to illustrate that the commitment is to the will of the citizens of the US). Electors would no longer vote for anything but the popular vote.

"If Congress wanted to keep the electoral college but make it fairer, there is a simple (but unlikely) solution: increase the size of the House of Representatives. There is nothing in the constitution mandating a particular size except that each member must represent at least 30,000 people (which puts an upper limit on the House of about 10,000 members). In fact, the House has been expanded repeatedly in the past as the nation grew. The most recent expansion was in 1911, when the U.S. population was about 93 million, so a representative had 212,000 constituents. With the current population of 293 million*, a representative has 674,000 constituents. To bring this number back to its 1911 value, the House should be expanded to 1370 members. Since a state's electoral vote is equal to its congressional representation, with 1370 House members, the effect of the 100 senators would be much smaller and the electoral votes would be almost proportional to population. To increase the size of the House, Congress would merely have to pass a law; the states would not be involved at all." http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Info/electoral-college.html
*The current population of the US is 325,082,166, all numbers would need to be adjusted upward.

If Electors in the EC were reflective of the population it would certainly be less problematic and would result in presidential elections more closely resembling the will of the US population, but would require significant increases on the very routine time intervals which is complicated and burdensome; it would require major overhauls. The US population is estimated to rise to over 390 million by 2030, so if we overhauled it today (made it reflective and proportionate) it would likely not be reflective or proportionate in just 14 years and would require another complete "over-haul"

As the US population increases we will continue to see presidents being elected less and less mirroring the popular vote and presidents elected with the popular vote occurring less and less (with the 'loser' winning higher and higher proportions of the popular vote). The electoral college was fairly true in 1911 .... and as each year passes and as the population grows it is less and less reflective of the US voting public.

Again, if you support a system that is not reflective of the will of the citizens of the US ... I can understand support of the EC in its current form.

Discussing it is whining? You sound like a right winger.

Anyone that varies from the popular groupthink sounds like a right winger.

does. I see them using that term all the time. We are just discussing it - and pointing out its flaws.

This is kinda inaccurately talked about all the time. It's made out like Black people (slaves at the time) were counted less out of racism. What actually happened was that slave owners wanted to count them so they would get more (pro-slavery) Congressional representation for the Southern states, very unfairly since slaves were not considered citizens and couldn't vote so why should those slave states get extra House members. 3/5 was a compromise, the slave owners wanted to count them the SAME as everyone else, the North didn't want to count them at all, anyone that opposed slavery (DU if the Internet had existed back then) wouldn't have wanted to count them at all.

they don't seem to understand it when explained.

high dudgeon > logic and knowledge

to think the slaves should count at all when they could not vote. Or maybe they didn't see the hypocrisy as they were blind to it.

We do not have a pure democracy but a representative one. This notion of a "republic" is usually an argument on the right.

written? How was it determined that Wyoming, for example, should be as big as it is rather than say as big as California? And who determines how many people should be included in each states borders? These states were formed out of territory owned wholly by the "United States", they didn't make any pact or have anything to do with how the constitution has divided up the votes of the people.

I'm with those interested in changing to a system that treats people more equally. Sorry that you are resigned to a less equal setup.

If we were a true democracy, slavery would have lasted much longer

Your thinking went out with, if not the Articles of Confederation, at the very least the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. For all practical purposes, we're one people, one nation and states are a spandrel of a bygone era. The sovereign states mantra and the electoral college compromise were based on a world that thankfully no longer exists, slavery, fear of the mob, popular democracy isn't stable long term and all that bullshit. So drop the antique argument crap. You sound like John fucking Adams.

Hillary won. But ........

....due to an antiquated system that does not represent the will of the people. Seriously, are you channeling Scalia?

what "discussion" means? Given, I was being a bit sarcastic.

The system wasn't designed to represent the will of "the people". That's the whole point of this discussion.

We mostly don't like that anymore, so we want to change it. That doesn't change the facts of history.

Adams was a Federalist.

in the Senate and the electoral college. That was a choice we made at the time.

It was a choice made at the time, when they had no idea how many states there were to be and what the populations would be. So they set it to numbers already defined in the Constitution, the number of representative and senators.

The HOR should have more seats and districts should be drawn in a politically neutral, standardized way too, in order to ensure actual representation of the people who live in them.

Doesn't it?

Arguable as bad as the discrepant representation among small and large states.

What's the point of voting if winner takes all and your candidate isn't close to being the majority candidate?

California has 55 electors, Vermont has 3. You might argue that citizens of Vermont are over-represented in the electoral college, but the state clearly is not.

The electoral college represents the same compromise as does the congress - partially by state, partially by population.

...and is, in fact, counter productive. It dates from a time when the interests of states varied far more widely than today (slave / not slave, agrarian / industrial, etc.) and colonial rivalries were still relatively fresh in the minds of the populace. Thankfully, those days are long gone.

In pushing through an amendment to do away with the EC.

Vermont's three electors represent 627,000 people - roughly 208,000 people per elector.
California's 55 electors represent 38.8 million - roughly 705,000 people per elector.

Hence, each Vermonter is 3.5x more powerful in the EC than each Californian.

I agree that is a perfectly valid view of the current state of affairs, although I'm not sure it's the most nearly correct view.


Each Vermonter's vote for president counts for more than each Californian's vote for president, but California's votes for president count for far, far more than Vermont's. The latter is what the OP referred to.

The EC does reflect the same compromise that we agreed to for our leglislative representation.

I'm pretty sure I understand the "one person, one vote" argument. I'm not so sure that those making that argument understand the "one state, one vote" argument that a federation of states might aspire to.

It doesn't make any sense. The red States are WAY over weighted. CA should be worth about 200 plus Evs when compared to Wyoming.

I was thinking along the lines of adding more seats in the house of rep, then giving those to "least represented states."

I resent the fact that my vote counts less than some blue collar, racist white person. I don't mind the blue collar part, but racist part is never acceptable.

that have used a direct democracy for 227 years and see how they did it?

But good luck doing anything about it because it definitely favors the GOP and at this point they're running the freak show.

big seat at the table in the US.

No Senators, no vote for prez.


You don't get a congressmen without a population of 3.5 million is a district.

No taxation without representation!