• xenspidey@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    3 months ago

    I get it, but then only like 4 counties in the whole country decide an election.

    • cowfodder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Oh no! The majority of the people get to decide an election in a democracy! The horror!

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      As opposed to now where only like 4 empty plots of dirt decide elections…?

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Not only that, but if the election is close, the entire country gets re-counted.

      The quickest way to fix the electoral college is not to fix it at all, but to increase the size of Congress. Congress used to increase in size every year, until the 1920s, when they couldn’t decide on how many seats to add. In 1920, there were about 250k people in an average district. Now there are over 750k, which is larger than some of the smallest states.

      Congress sets its own size, and this fix can be done without any amendment.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/data-download/nations-population-growing-congress-standing-still-rcna103142

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        This doesn’t really fix anything other than the small state counting bias. You still have states that are entirely ignored because they’re reliably >50% red/blue and you still have a small number of close states that are the only ones who matter. There’s still a high likelihood that you’ll have presidents elected who lost the popular vote merely because of inefficient arrangements of voters.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        that doesn’t solve the issue with the senate; where every state regardless of size has two.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          No, that won’t be solved without a constitutional amendment, though. Increasing the size of Congress can help mitigate the issue, and just takes an act of Congress .

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s the entire purpose of the Senate. It is functioning as designed and that is not an issue.

          Congress is supposed to be two halves, one where every State is on equal footing (Senate), and one half where a larger population gets a larger voice (House).

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Just because it’s designed that way doesn’t make it a non-issue. It was designed to be shitty and I’d really like a not-shitty government, thank you.

    • blazera@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Counties dont vote. Individuals vote. Even if you’re in LA youre still one person that gets one vote regardless of how those around you vote.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      …if you batched the popular vote into counties and made each county winner-take-all.

      Which is not what anyone is suggesting.