• @acosmichippo
    link
    English
    10
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    the inherent problem is you’d need some of the less populous states to voluntarily give their disproportionate power away. Even if they agree at the time that a popular vote is in their favor, that doesn’t mean it will be forever. It’s in their best interest to never give that power up.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      813 hours ago

      Maybe it’s time to re-randomize the map. Six Californias, merge a couple Dakotas, and a new state called “Steve” in the middle of Texas for no good reason.

      States seem to be a classic seemed-sensible-in-1790 hack, goofier and less relevant as time goes on. At best you get arbitrage plays, finding the most comfortable jurisdiction for your particular graft. At worst, it seems to be a great line for the scum too stupid and/or crooked to get a federal position to settle at.

      I wonder if a UK-style model, where the regional governments are devolved narrow lists of things they can play at government with, would work better.

      • @PugJesus
        link
        English
        313 hours ago

        Luv me states. Luv me history. But realistically speaking, if they could be abolished and replaced with nearly any other modern system of national/regional government organization, it would be massive improvement.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
      link
      fedilink
      English
      212 hours ago

      You “only” need to convince enough of the current states to elect a president, then they can just join that compact that has states always give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.

      It’s only as hard as electing a president, but you need to get a lot of state officials on board.

      • @acosmichippo
        link
        English
        11 hour ago

        I’m not convinced that interstate compact will work. it would be hugely controversial, and with the way the SCOTUS is stacked for the foreseeable future it would probably be deemed unconstitutional.