it's broken, so let's fix it

[metaphorge]

Here's an idea I like a lot: a plan to correct the disproprtionate representation of less populous states in presidential elections by legally circumventing the Electoral College:

"Koza's scheme calls for an interstate compact that would require states to throw all of their electoral votes behind the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate wins in each state. The plan doesn't require all 50 states to join, but a combination of states that represent a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes. If the largest states join in the agreement, only 11 would be needed."

If this is a go, then all that has to be done is to figure a way to counteract the disproportional representation of less populous states in the Senate. If we're going to claim that the United States is for "one man, one vote" then that should be what happens in practice.

Comments

[thiebes.livejournal.com]

Disproportional representation of less populous states in the Senate is by design though. It's so that the majority populous states don't have too great an advantage over the less populous states.

Personally I think we should go back to the State legislatures deciding who are the Senators from the state.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I like it too.

It's so slap-your-forehead obvious, after seeing it, that it makes you wonder why no one proposed it before.

[gorillashaman.livejournal.com]

The US is not now and never has been a "one man one vote" democracy. The creation of the Senate was mandated by the smaller states to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Whether or not this is good or bad is a subject for debate.

Personally, I don't believe "one man one vote" is workable for any issue that involves more than a few dozen people, and certainly not for any issue which involves 300 million people.

[roadriverrail.livejournal.com]

If we're going to claim that the United States is for "one man, one vote" then that should be what happens in practice.

First off, not to be linguistically pedantic, but it is "one man, one vote". Each voter drops one ballot in the box. They get weighted in different ways, but everyone has one ballot and one vote. Nobody makes two votes. Don't try to tell me otherwise, because you know that's true.

My bigger point, though, is that you and many people who comment on this LJ (from time to time, this includes me) project inappropriately when it comes to societal values. We don't claim the United States is for "one man, one vote". You do, and sometimes other people do, too. We, as a collective society, do not, and we have a political structure that reflects it. I realize abolition of the Electoral College is one of your pet fantasies, but your message would be a lot more honest, IMHO, if you spoke for yourself and not for society as a whole.

[hick0ry.livejournal.com]

The United States was never meant to stand for "one man, one vote" or to be a democracy, for the simple reason that the Founders agreed that the tyranny of the majority is no different from any other tyranny.