• Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    District sizes have nothing to do with Presidential or Senate elections, they are state wide.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you increase the members of congress, then that’s going to increase the number of electoral college votes needed to win as well. So, proportionally, it all stays the same.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          The number of votes per state would go up based on the population of each state, not a straight multiply by x.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            They wouldn’t though, the people in charge of changing this would not allow states like California and New York to dominate the process, which they would if it were based purely on population.

            • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Literally no one has ever suggested doing it the way you keep suggesting.

              It would be something like the Wyoming rule because just scaling the house by an arbitrary value is asinine.

              There is no reason to have arbitrary lines determine the vote rather than people.

              • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                The problem is the people proposing the change and the people in charge of implementing the change are two different groups of people. ;)

                You think, for a minute, the people responsible for blocking Merrick Garland from getting a Supreme Court hearing, are going to give states like California even an inch more power in Presidential elections, well… you have a greater faith in humanity than I do.

                The only reason they haven’t changed the congressional makeup is because they haven’t (yet) figured out how to empower low population red states at the expense of high population blue states.

    • svtdragon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Congressional districts are divided among states based on the census, and then become the count of electoral votes, which in turn award the presidency. So they have a lot to do with presidential elections.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Increasing the number of congressional districts would also necessitate increasing the number of votes needed to win.

        Right now, each state has 1 per Congressman and 1 for each of 2 Senators.

        538 total with 270 needed to win (50.18%).

        So if you add house members, let’s say we do something crazy and double it for everyone:

        976 electoral college votes (538-100 because the Senate votes are fixed. 438*2 then add the 100 Senators back in).

        Now you need 488 to become President. The problem remains, all you did is change the scale.

        • jpj007@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But you wouldn’t just double it for each state. You’d increase the total number of House seats, and then portion them out according to the populations of each state. That’s how it was always done before they capped the size of the House.

          Currently, Wyoming has just one House seat. If you double the number of total House seats, Wyoming still only gets one. They currently have a larger impact on Presidential elections than they should if it were decided strictly by population, and that’s due entirely to the Electoral College and the cap on the size of the House.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The size of the electoral college is based on the size of the House, because the House (currently) has a fixed size, the states each get a set number of electoral votes, that do not actually match the populations of those states.

      This is due to a law passed in 1929 called the permanent apportionment act, which froze the size of the House, despite the fact that we’ve added two new states since then.

      So States like California have less electoral power than they should, while states like Rhode Island have more than they should. Well, technically Rhode Island should have more as well, every state should have more.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Increasing the number of congressional districts would also necessitate increasing the number of votes needed to win.

        Right now, each state has 1 per Congressman and 1 for each of 2 Senators.

        538 total with 270 needed to win (50.18%).

        So if you add house members, let’s say we do something crazy and double it for everyone:

        976 electoral college votes (538-100 because the Senate votes are fixed. 438*2 then add the 100 Senators back in).

        Now you need 488 to become President. The problem remains, all you did is change the scale.