Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[Dill]

(10-20-2017, 12:41 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK alright. But if you get rid of the majority voting like you suggested, and if you add electors to balance the numbers, you basically have the same system I propose. Only difference would be electors bundling a certain number of votes into one block (the elector), but apart from minor rounding errors stemming from that in the respective states you would have a "big bowl". There's really no important difference.


Apart from my belief that your idea matches mine anyway, Montana would still be a state with a governor and all, you couldn't just do anything without their consent there just like now; also Montana would still have quite a massive overrepresentation by the two senators. I don't really grasp the new danger here. Also, your point could easily be turned around into an opposite hypothesis. What if an exec would want to build a nuclear waste disposal (or whatever they don't like) in Texas or California. Sure that state would turn against said candidate probably, but then again they are underrepresented in total and others could vote against Texas/California interests. Things like that always can happen no matter who is overrepresented, so I argue that the fairest solution, in principle, is to not over- oder underrepresent any citizens from anywhere. I do have a hard time following the logic of the arguments to not do so.

Got interrupted by the weekend black out. 

I don't mind giving California a little electoral relief. They are so out of balance even with the other large states. But I did not say I was for making the electoral college equally representative in all states.

And actually having a governor and all does not always help.  
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-reversed-citzens-united-montana_n_1605355.html