- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 20,177
- Reaction score
- 21,525
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Most folks honestly appraising our current situation can admit that the Electoral College system is broken. It doesn't serve any discernable purpose at present, and most arguments for it these days are based on retconned ahistorical accounts of its rationale.
The reality is that it doesn't work at all like the system envisioned in Federalist No. 68 (indeed, it works in the exact opposite fashion) and both the nation and electorate today look nothing like that of 1788. Indeed, the primary selling point of the Electoral College in 1787, that it allowed predominantly southern states to count their non-voting enslaved populations toward their electoral representation (at a 3/5 discount, of course) was negated by the 13th and 15th amendments.
James "Father of the Constitution" Madison, who favored a popular vote for presidents at the Constitutional Convention, was convinced by the early 1820s that the Electoral College was broken, famously arguing in an 1823 letter to George Hay that a constitutional amendment requiring that Electors be chosen by Congressional districts, not states, was warranted.
But no action has ever been taken and we've drifted into the current absurd status quo, where the EC functions as a vestigial organ of a bygone era, yet functions nothing like the original vision. So now we've got states trying to take some action, with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact 89 electoral votes shy of taking effect (following swing state Colorado's recent passage).
But perhaps there's an easier, though less satisfying, way.
Those who advocate straight up abolishment of the Electoral College face a high hurdle: a Constitutional amendment is required.
Those pinning their hopes on the NPVIC face a lower but still substantial hurdle: a likely need for Congressional approval.
How about an alternative approach? Like expanding the size of the House of Representatives, last updated in 1911 to accommodate population growth, to provide more adequate representation to American citizens? A Rep today represents ~750K constituents, which is both enormous and unusual in the world. We're a big country, we need a big House to make sure the people's voice is being heard. Probably a much bigger House, given population growth since 1911. Perhaps on the order of 1,600 districts.
Yes, it's the same hurdle as the NPVIC, in that legislation needs to be passed through Congress. But it's arguably less objectionable legislation, as its primary purpose is to increase the average American's voice and representation in Congress. The happy side effect, given that the number of presidential electors is equal to Reps + Senators, is that the Electoral College also becomes more representative of the people's voice. The California : Wyoming elector ratio grows in a proportionally appropriate way as California's House delegation, and thus number of electoral votes, grows. The Electoral College remains a roundabout and dumb system, but this way both it and our legislative representation more accurately represent what voters actually want. An area where our current system falls woefully short on all fronts.
Uncapping House representation has other happy effects, as well, like lowering the stakes of gerrymandering when states are no longer playing with a vast undercount of districts that compel state legislators to cram all of the opposition into 1-3 densely packed districts.
Throw Puerto Rico and/or D.C. statehood in the mix and we're cooking with gas now.
Anyway, this seems like a much easier way to fix not only the EC but multiple facets of the American electoral system. Who's sold?
The reality is that it doesn't work at all like the system envisioned in Federalist No. 68 (indeed, it works in the exact opposite fashion) and both the nation and electorate today look nothing like that of 1788. Indeed, the primary selling point of the Electoral College in 1787, that it allowed predominantly southern states to count their non-voting enslaved populations toward their electoral representation (at a 3/5 discount, of course) was negated by the 13th and 15th amendments.
James "Father of the Constitution" Madison, who favored a popular vote for presidents at the Constitutional Convention, was convinced by the early 1820s that the Electoral College was broken, famously arguing in an 1823 letter to George Hay that a constitutional amendment requiring that Electors be chosen by Congressional districts, not states, was warranted.
But no action has ever been taken and we've drifted into the current absurd status quo, where the EC functions as a vestigial organ of a bygone era, yet functions nothing like the original vision. So now we've got states trying to take some action, with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact 89 electoral votes shy of taking effect (following swing state Colorado's recent passage).
But perhaps there's an easier, though less satisfying, way.
Those who advocate straight up abolishment of the Electoral College face a high hurdle: a Constitutional amendment is required.
Those pinning their hopes on the NPVIC face a lower but still substantial hurdle: a likely need for Congressional approval.
How about an alternative approach? Like expanding the size of the House of Representatives, last updated in 1911 to accommodate population growth, to provide more adequate representation to American citizens? A Rep today represents ~750K constituents, which is both enormous and unusual in the world. We're a big country, we need a big House to make sure the people's voice is being heard. Probably a much bigger House, given population growth since 1911. Perhaps on the order of 1,600 districts.
Yes, it's the same hurdle as the NPVIC, in that legislation needs to be passed through Congress. But it's arguably less objectionable legislation, as its primary purpose is to increase the average American's voice and representation in Congress. The happy side effect, given that the number of presidential electors is equal to Reps + Senators, is that the Electoral College also becomes more representative of the people's voice. The California : Wyoming elector ratio grows in a proportionally appropriate way as California's House delegation, and thus number of electoral votes, grows. The Electoral College remains a roundabout and dumb system, but this way both it and our legislative representation more accurately represent what voters actually want. An area where our current system falls woefully short on all fronts.
Uncapping House representation has other happy effects, as well, like lowering the stakes of gerrymandering when states are no longer playing with a vast undercount of districts that compel state legislators to cram all of the opposition into 1-3 densely packed districts.
Throw Puerto Rico and/or D.C. statehood in the mix and we're cooking with gas now.
Anyway, this seems like a much easier way to fix not only the EC but multiple facets of the American electoral system. Who's sold?
