Broken Government

[BmorePat87]

(09-23-2020, 01:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, finally someone willing to put their money were their keyboard is! 

Don't like the first as I prefer the states having individual say in the election of the POTUS.

As to the second expand it by how much?  

The third?  That's a hard hell no for me.  The upper chamber being in charge of that is infinitely preferable as they are elected statewide and thus less susceptible to pressure.  As inane as some senators are they look like Rhodes Scholars compared to many House members.

The last?  I don't dislike the idea, but there's no way you'll get an Amendment passed on it.

But in this system, every voter from every state has a say, not just the voters of the candidate who wins the state. I'd be willing to compromise on outlawing winner take all in the EC. Deal?

For #2- Ideally i'd like to see us a little higher than we were when we set 435 in 1911 (1 per 200k residents). We're around 1 per 760k. 1 per 350k or 400k would be my ideal, but 800-900 may be too many. 1 per 500k is 662. That's reasonable. 

My argument for #3 is that population trends will make the Senate an increasingly less representative body and certain powers should be given to the far more representative body. 

And I agree that #4  won't pass.