In 1929, Congress passed the Reapportionment Act, loving the House of Representatives at 435. Due to population growth in largely coastal states, and the requirement of at least one Representative per state, the House, which was intended to provide representation proportional to population, instead give a significant amount of power to states with lower population densities, resulting in a tendency towards minority rule in the House. Since the number of Electoral College votes are proportional to a state’s delegation to Congress, this also gives low-population states an outsized influence over the Presidential election, contrary to the intent of the US Constitution.
It never made sense. It was literally created to make sure voters could be overruled in the event the ruling class (party insiders) disagreed with their choice. It was justified to stop “mob rule” also known as the will of we the people.
It did make sense, but I understand why it might not seem like it to “modern Americans”. In fact, it’s quite an interesting mental challenge of putting yourself in someone else’s shoes.
We have a similar issue today in the EU. Do we base it one “one country, one vote” or on “one person, one vote”? Both sides of the argument is valid. Why would small countries join if they give up complete independence to the giants? I imagine the situation was very similar when the US was formed.
I think the flaw in the US system is they failed to forsee that states (or rather, people) would see themselves as one country and not a collection of countries. There should have been a time limit on the discrepancy of voting power.
Sure, for a hundred years, a state is where your loyalty, your feeling of self, your center is at. But as time moves on, you are less an Ohioian and more of s USian. Similarly, I would hope, you are less of a German and more of an EUian.
Neither blocks seem to have taken this into consideration but it makes it none the less true. Future generations paying the price for previous. Yada yada…
Yeah, but like that’s going to stop him taking waaay too close to 50% of the vote to be comfortable.
It’s not about 50% it’s about swing states and the illegitimate electoral college
Do you mean the Trump Fake Elector Plot?
Glad that has an article I can share to my friends who are normally very intelligent, but they legit believe Biden stole the erection.
Well, he doesn’t help my erection, but if he’s working for your friends I’m not gonna judge.
Uh Trump was the one in office. Pretty damn hard rig an election when you’re not in power or position to influence.
Please define illegitimate electoral college.
In 1929, Congress passed the Reapportionment Act, loving the House of Representatives at 435. Due to population growth in largely coastal states, and the requirement of at least one Representative per state, the House, which was intended to provide representation proportional to population, instead give a significant amount of power to states with lower population densities, resulting in a tendency towards minority rule in the House. Since the number of Electoral College votes are proportional to a state’s delegation to Congress, this also gives low-population states an outsized influence over the Presidential election, contrary to the intent of the US Constitution.
Sure
The electoral college allows states with far less people to have the same amount of power as those with far denser populations
It made sense in the past but no longer, and instead at times goes against the majority will of the people a la Trump and many previous examples
It never made sense. It was literally created to make sure voters could be overruled in the event the ruling class (party insiders) disagreed with their choice. It was justified to stop “mob rule” also known as the will of we the people.
It did make sense, but I understand why it might not seem like it to “modern Americans”. In fact, it’s quite an interesting mental challenge of putting yourself in someone else’s shoes.
We have a similar issue today in the EU. Do we base it one “one country, one vote” or on “one person, one vote”? Both sides of the argument is valid. Why would small countries join if they give up complete independence to the giants? I imagine the situation was very similar when the US was formed.
I think the flaw in the US system is they failed to forsee that states (or rather, people) would see themselves as one country and not a collection of countries. There should have been a time limit on the discrepancy of voting power.
Sure, for a hundred years, a state is where your loyalty, your feeling of self, your center is at. But as time moves on, you are less an Ohioian and more of s USian. Similarly, I would hope, you are less of a German and more of an EUian.
Neither blocks seem to have taken this into consideration but it makes it none the less true. Future generations paying the price for previous. Yada yada…
No, it never made sense because it never accomplished its stated purpose. It only ever suppressed the will of the majority.
It served its purpose though. It created a union.
I agree with you that it’s outdated and a terrible fit.
Until we effectively replace it in law, unfortunately, it’s literally not illegitimate.
I think a big reason why turning Texas Blue is such a priority, once that happens the GOP will be glad to get rid of the electoral college.
He can’t, he already used all of his brain power to spell illegitimate.
The electoral college allows states with far less people to have the same amount of power as those with far denser populations
It’s not rocket science, and yes I trust spellcheck too much
You only need 22% of total votes to get elected president
While this is true, he has a lot more than that.
another “true, but”, comment: remember, Hillary got more votes than him. By the most in quantity and margin size in history, and still lost.