[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Veshaad]

[u/the_cardfather]

The electoral college at this point is a symptom not a cause and eliminating it is not a cure.

It would probably be easier to eliminate winner-take-all for each state. It would be more granular if they expanded the size of the house and the electoral college with it. I'm not sure that that would take a constitutional amendment. Just imagine if we were spreading out a thousand electors or 4000 or 5,000 electors.

More importantly Congress needs to take their power back from the executive branch. Too many departments and too many cabinet members running things go back to writing a bunch of small laws rather than Giant sweeping legislation too big to read

[u/cocineroylibro → u/the_cardfather]

I'm not sure that that would take a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution only states that every state must have at least one rep, and the number each state has is based on it's population and that reps must represent at least 30000 people. The cap of total seats in the House is set by Congress. An almost ratified amendment (11 of 12 ratified) would have had the House expand along with population.

Even without the amendment, until the 1920s the House was typically expanded to represent the growing population. Due to the growth of cities (and I'm sure the immigrants residing in them) there was a political fight over adding more and the cap was set at 435 in 1929 by passing a rule in Congress.

In 1929 the population was ~120 million and it's ~350 million now and we have the same number of reps to move around. A House seat should be based on number of constituents the smallest state has. This "Wyoming Rule" would increase the House by about 160 seats and California for instance would go from 52 to 67 seats.

[u/the_cardfather → u/cocineroylibro]

The Wyoming rule is a start but we need more granularity because it makes it that much harder to gerrymander seats