• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    We could also just make it irrelevant by expanding Congress radically. Adding back all the seats we missed when we froze the numbers in the 1940s. Even better, we were slipping on the ratio of representatives to people even back then so we could go back to the original ratio or something in between. That would be a max of around 10,000 representatives, but you would be far more familiar with your representative and they could do elections without the support of the economic elite or being rich.

    That doesn’t require an amendment and it functionally obliterates this tyranny of the minority.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      We could also just make it irrelevant by expanding Congress radically. Adding back all the seats we missed when we froze the numbers in the 1940s.

      or we could just do a CGPgrey and rework the math because we have computers now.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Proper representation shouldn’t be so unthinkable. And we could achieve the idea of better representation with one or two thousand. We don’t need to go to ten thousand yet.

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

      This doesn’t make the electoral college irrelevant, it just rebalances the votes per state so they’re closer to proportional. California Republicans and Texas Democrats are still disenfranchised even if their states get a lot more votes.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah but that last hurdle takes a lot more to get over and in the meantime we’ve done something we should have anyways.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        That was always the point of the system though. And if we need to 86 the Senate then having them constantly blocking the house provides that momentum. It would be a huge fight.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        yeah no, that should be the same, unless you wanted the senate to hold a proportional amount of seating to the house for some reason.

        The senate and house are two independent bodies, they work together, and at odds simultaneously, the point is that the senate is different.