I haven’t done the math on abolishing the EC, has anyone else? I wonder how the additional Rep votes in blue states would affect elections over time (not just in a given race).
Like I know that we win some that we would have lost (2000, 2016) but I have to think that there would be times where it might hurt us too. There are more registered Republicans living in the state of California than there are people living in the state of Mississippi.
what
I am not approaching this from a “how do we guarantee nancy pelosi and chuck shumer can stay in power forever” point of view, foh with that shit
BTW, if the house is expanded to like 4000 members AND states all allocate electors by congressional district, then the electoral college is a LOT less problematic.
there are some good things about driving elections through districts (congressional or otherwise), it certainly makes recount scenarios less cumbersome, especially if we’re talking about relatively small districts.
I’m talking in terms of “counting all the votes.” Like it’s great that Dems in Bama and Mississippi and Wyoming finally get their votes counted but it cuts both ways. But I get your point.
yes, I’m talking about building a functional system, not a system that favors the party I particularly like
in any case, in a system like this there would be functional third parties so your limited view of the world as red or blue wouldn’t even apply.
that reminds me
Can trade unions and nonprofits still lobby congress under your proposal? Individual non-incorporated businessmen? Trade/professional groups? I know “corporations are people too my friend” is kind of a gross thought, but all of these examples are, in fact, just groupings of people.
This is a really good point that I hadn’t ever considered. I’ve thought we should increase the size of the house for a long time, but didn’t think of the subsequent effect on the electoral college.
The house currently averages 1 representative for every ~720,000 people. 200 years ago, that number was ~40,000.
The house could easily be increased by a factor of 10.
In concept, I understand why these groups and corporations should be able to advocate for themselves, I just don’t think lobbying is the optimal or ethical way to do it. I don’t really know how I would handle it in a revised system.
The point I was making is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with “lobbying”. How else is the citizenry supposed to make the government do something?
Parliamentary democracy with MMP voting
Get rid of everything and base it all off of Star Trek.
This is the argument that Alabama tried to make against the NAACP and the New York Times in the Civil Rights Era.
I may be on the other side from most of this forum on this one, but I definitely do not favor taking away rights from corporations like freedom of speech and protection from warrantless search and seizures. (No quartering of troops, either.)
-No more presidential debates
-Remove barriers set by two-party system to suppress third parties
-Use two-round voting system for presidential voting*
-Make all voting take place by mail
-Automatic voter registration at 18 for all citizens
*Basically, it’s what exists in places like France and the Czech Republic. A shit-ton of people here run for president (9 in the last Czech election). If nobody gets more than 50%, the top two go at it in the second round. Winner gets the nod.
I don’t think people are giving the value of shorter elections enough credit.
It would have so many good knock off effects,
Less partisanship
Less tribalism
Less money spent
More time for media to focus on other important things
More time for politician to legislate instead of run
I don’t get it. People can campaign for office whenever they want. There’s no “start date” for a political campaign.
There is in Canada. It’s announced by the PM and campaigns don’t really start until then. It’s usually a couple months start to end.
That doesn’t mean politicians aren’t raising money etc but there are no ads really, no “who’s winning” stories, no events, nobody really talks politics etc.
Don’t think that would be constitutional here
Likely so the real answer is put your constitution in the shredder where it belongs and write one that contemplates the existence of electricity! 
Dunno, that would run afoul of the first amendment, which is Good, Actually.