• Jordan Lund
    link
    fedilink
    -141 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
      link
      81 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
        link
        fedilink
        -91 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
          link
          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
            link
            fedilink
            -41 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.