this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
742 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19016 readers
3595 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

As governor he got his state signed on to the national popular vote interstate compact

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 66 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As an Alabamian I dream of the day that my vote actually matters, fuck the electoral college.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As a Washingtonian I also dream of that. It is ridiculous that only people in states that are kinda purple have their opinions heard.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'd prefer at least to maintain districts, 1 vote for 1 district, remove states and the extra two votes. Each district exactly the same number of people, give or take 1%. Give the low populated counties out in the boonies a chance to be heard.

But failing that, straight popular vote is a better option than the current cluster fuck.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If it is equal representation, why does having districts make the rural vote heard? Whether it is one person one vote or 100,000 people one vote it won’t make a difference.

Everyone will still have their representatives and senators to hear them. In fact I think we need to increase the number of representatives. It needs to be a number that a person can reasonably represent. Say 50 or 100 thousand people per representative. This would also help with gerrymandering as having a lot of small districts would make everyone’s voice louder.

But for national positions like the president, we should have proportional votes, preferably with getting rid of first past the post that got us stuck with the two party system to start with.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Congress of going to need to expand a little bit, if all 3,330-6,660 reps should be able to gather at the same time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This would be a problem if it were 1924, but we're living in 2024. The solutions for this are right in front of us and have been for decades. Get all these guys and gals on a secure teleconference and turn the Capitol building into a museum, or renovate it to have smaller private offices.

There, now we can get 10,000 reps in if we need to. The bigger concern is how are they going to decide who gets to speak with that many representatives. They can't realistically give everybody equal floor time and expect government to be anything other than completely paralyzed. So the number probably still needs to be capped, but it should be capped at a value where whatever the state that has the lowest population sets the value at 1 and every other state divides their population by that number to figure out how many representatives they get.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There was an article (Archive Link) in The Washington Post discussing the nuts and bolts of how expanded representation could work. It wouldn't be hard.

A quote from the article: To my surprise and delight, the team’s last proposal reveals that we could actually take the House of Representatives up to 1,725 members without having to construct a new building.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Districts open things up to gerrymandering..

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Which is a problem that needs to be solved regardless.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Absolutely, but let's not make it worse by putting the presidential election behind it... It's bad enough it causes an imbalance in the House of Representatives. It would be far worse than the Electoral College.