After seeing that California rates a whopping 54 votes and some other entire states being only 3 etc. I was wondering if a balancing should be in order?
For example, anywhere that currently has more than 10 votes should be broken down into voting sections which separates city/urban voting blocks so that it is more representative of all the people in that state, not just the cities overwhelming the wishes of country folk - who are basically disenfranchised by the electoral voting system.
Would this be seen as positive thing in the US? Just thinking out loud.
Each Congressional District represents a little over 760,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_congressional_districts
Thanks for this. There is a statement on that page that set off alarm bells for some reason ;)
The most concerning issue is that they are supposed to represent citizens, but lefties have bastardized the system to include occupants legal or illegal.
One thing that could/should be done is to only use actual US citizens to determine the number of EC votes. Same with congressional seats. Illegal and noncitizens should not be counted for this, as they are currently. That would cut California seats and EC votes down by a bunch.
We are a republic of sovereign States. The number of representatives is proportional to their population. It's not a perfect system, but it attempts to be fair.
Some states do.
This is what nebraska and maine do, more or less. But I don’t know if it would make things better or worse.
I am a Brit, too, and I think the system was set up like this originally:
There is a House of Representatives and the number of Representatives relates to the number of people in each state.
There is also a Senate and each states get to have two Senators to represent them there. Originally the state governor would appoint the Senators.
OK, things changed since and now Senators are voted for by the people and there are slight variations in rules between the states.
So the system provides a balance between people and states thus minimising the "democracy is when two wolves and a lamb decide what to have for dinner" issue.
Off the top of my head there are only two ways that can happen.
The first would be amending the constitution to redefine how electoral votes are apportioned. That would be a difficult thing to do. Lots of amendments are proposed, few succeed.
The second route would be a movement within a state to break it into smaller states. This was attempted in California. I think there was even a successful petition effort to get it put on the ballot for Californians to decide, but a judge ruled against it and it never made it to a vote.
I live (used to) in California when this was attempted. They wanted to break the state up into essentially a northern state (State of Jefferson) and a southern state. Unfortunately, even if the judge didn’t intervene, the population dense areas (Southern California) would vote against it because they are dependent on Northern California water. If Northern California were its own state, they could essentially hold Southern California hostage for water.
James Madison designed the electoral college system to protect other citizens from the numerical advantages of uniform votes in large cities. It does that well, which proves his genius. Don't F with it.