• Serkette@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    There’s a minimum of 3 electoral votes per state even if they are under the population required for it. They will end up stealing those votes from other, more populous, states.

      • Stern@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        In the South Illinois hypothetical the bigger issue is the extra Senate seats more then the 3 electoral votes.

        Really we need to abolish the current upper limit on the house and set it to a population marker again. If we did, the 100 electoral votes the Senate counts for would be an afterthought, because populous states like Cali (presuming something like 1 rep per 100k population.) would have hundreds of reps each.

        • Cort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          The lowest population state should be the benchmark for what population gets 1 rep.

        • I think we should allow this. And cites should do the same thing: whenever conservatives do this, cities should undergo mitosis, thereby not only canceling the red tactic, but increasing the liberal count. In fact, we should let this process run until there are 335 million states, and each person is their own elector, senator, and representative. That’d usher in the popular vote, and give each national the incomes and health care of both a senator and a representative, which would be Basic Income on steroids. Plus, the PACs would be busy trying to bribe every American citizen!

          It’s a gloriously stupid idea.