09-23-2020, 02:26 PM
(09-23-2020, 02:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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?
Ehh, I still prefer the winner take all system. As I've stated in the past, the US is not like other western countries in that the states are seen as almost of equal importance to the Federal government. Statewide elections are winner take all, as it were, I see no reason that the POTUS should be different.
Quote: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.
As long as the minimum of one per state was maintained I'd be fine with this. Were are they going to fit all these people though?
Quote: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.
I agree, but that's entirely by design. Seeing as how the entire premise of the thread is that the Framers system is not functioning as intended it seems odd to me to argue for eliminating something that is functioning exactly how the Framers intended. I'm certainly not directing this at you, but all the people who complain about the Senate not being representative and kvetching that Wyoming has the same number of senators as CA clearly failed Civics 101.
Quote:And I agree that #4 won't pass.
Hardly surprising as I don't think there's a single issue that could garner enough support for an amendment at this point in time.
