Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
Some of us are capable of critical analysis and can read history and recognize that a couple of centuries later, this compromise system doesn't serve us as a nation as well as a bunch of rich white men who didn't want individual citizens to have any say at all in choosing a president may have hoped.
|
Partisan myopia is not critical analysis, don't flatter yourself.
This is how federal republics work. This is why 51 senators can negate the will of 435 representatives, and 1 president can negate the will of 535 senators + representatives, and 38 states can tell the federal government to pound sand, and 5 of 9 judges can tell the executive and legislative branches "Wrong, do it again", etc, etc.
Tyranny of the majority was very specifically countered in our founding documents.
With that said, railing against the the Electoral College is the wrong direction to get what you want, which is a more accurate and fair representation between the EC and the population. Well, that would be nice, and in the "why does Norway have a budget surplus" thread, I mention one of the main reasons their government is more beholden to the wishes of their people - level of representation.
If we just use modern European countries and go with anywhere close to their level of representation in whatever they call their "people's house" (house of commons, parliament, whatever), a 1-to-100k rep-voter ratio is actually on the high end. For the US House, that would be ~3,000 reps. It would still be less than a third as representational as we were in the first 50 years of the republic, but much closer to what we should be in the "people's house."
This would mean the popular vote would much more closely resemble the electoral vote. It has a ton of other benefits as well, such as - diluting lobbyist influence to the point of insignificance, much closer representation at the local level, much more diverse range of thought within the House itself, as large factions would be much harder to cobble together, better turnover because a more accountable representative has a lower chance of lifetime incumbency, etc.
But in 1911 and then again in 1929, the money pot was sufficiently large that the greedy folks in Congress decided to cap how much they wanted to share with each other, so the number got capped at 435....when our population was a third of what it is now. As it stands now, the House is little more than a junior Senate, as average representation is 1 rep for every 750k citizens. It is no longer anything close to a house of commons, parliament, etc. We essentially have two House of Lords and no House of Commons.
Want less chance the EC screws you, then one or both of two things will help: 1) make the freaking US House bigger. 2) demand your state award their EC votes proportionally instead of WTA. Problem solved, and the states retain their sovereignty, as do their constituents.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
