this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
522 points (97.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2020 readers
928 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Kamala Harris’s running mate urges popular vote system but campaign says issue is not part of Democrats’ agenda

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buelldozer 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I think you're missing the bigger picture. Right now there is 535 votes, 100 from the Senate and 435 from the House.

If the House were expanded to 574 (Wyoming Rule, based on 2010 population data) there would be now be 675, which reduces the relative weight of the Senate's votes by nearly 1/3rd.

Nothing says it has to be the Wyoming Rule either, we could set a fixed ratio of Citizens to Representatives say 250,000 to 1. Now the HoR would have nearly 1,000 people in it and the Senate would be down to just 10% of the EC votes.

Frankly the HoR should be 1,000 seats or larger. A body of only 435 or even 574 is too small to accurately represent the interests of almost 340,000,000 people.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That would make the electoral college vote closer to proportional, but wouldn't solve the fundamental problem that small states will always have a disproportionate impact on the outcome as long as we use the electoral college system that is based on the sum of senate + house.

We should fix it as you note for the House to be truly representational of the population though.