• MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    125
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    I get that the Electoral College was originally designed to give smaller states an equal say. But, when Los Angeles county has more population than like 10 states combined, things are getting ridiculous.

    California has like 67 times the population of Wyoming… yet they each have two senators. And that keeps increasing.

    Our government is not a good representation of the populace.

    • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      The number of people was a political compromise between individual rights and States rights, but so was a Senate and House.

      The electoral college was primarily designed to enable states to vote despite a communication delay that could take months.

      It did great at that, actually. How would California have up to date info on what’s going on in Washington when the fastest mode of travel was a horse? It wouldn’t.

      Instead of voting based on information that’s outdated and potentially inaccurate, best to pick some people you trust to vote in your interests, and send them to Washington. Let them get caught up, and vote how they will as your representative.

      Then States can sort out their own voting time and method, with no real concern for it being simultaneous or consistent because news travels so slow anyway. The important thing was authorized people would show up by the expected federal voting time, and if that happened, everyone did well enough.

      Of course, now they can cast their vote without leaving the state, and coordination is possible, but here we are holding the bag on a lack of accounting for technological progress.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I agree with your ultimate premise, that technological advances have all but eliminated the need for the Ec. But, my man, the telegraph predates CA as a state.

        The EC was also for many reasons, but pertaining to the point were talking about, it was because they were afraid people would just campaign in cities because that would be the most efficient. The EC forces a wider appeal.

        But with the ability to reach everyone, everywhere, instantly, this fear that they only campaign in cities is gone.

        • spongebue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          3 months ago

          Also, the electoral college only shifts the focus from cities to major swing states (and even then, cities within those states).

          But more importantly, why the fuck should potential campaign strategies affect the strength of my vote?

    • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      It was originally designed to give slave owners a greater say than people in free states, since EC representation is mainly based on the number of representatives you have in the House, and the slave state representative count was inflated by the 3/5 compromise.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Instead of having a forever constitution that was great and new 200 years ago when the internet and modern transportation and communications didn’t exist … they should regularly overhaul the entire government every hundred years to keep up with the times.

      I’m in Canada and they should do the same here.

      We can’t possibly think that everything we see, think and believe today will be applicable to people living 100, 200 years from now.

      We look at 200 year old laws about horses and we laugh at it. 200 years from now, our descendants will laugh at what we’re debating today.

      The only reason to maintain the status quo is to protect the power and privilege of a few powerful and wealthy people. It never has anything to do with the goodwill of the people.

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      California has like 67 times the population of Wyoming… yet they each have two senators. And that keeps increasing.

      The worst part about the legislative branch is that Congress also acted to handicap the House of Representatives. It was supposed to be the body based on population. And you may say “Well California has 52 and Wyoming only 1 so that’s proportional.” But the original intent was no more than 30,000 constituents per representative. So based on a quick look at the 2020 population figures, Wyoming should have 19 while California should have ~1,317. (That would also be equivalent to California having 69 representatives to Wyoming’s current 1.)

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      “…designed to give smaller states an equal say…”

      Not quite…

    • aidan@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      California has like 67 times the population of Wyoming… yet they each have two senators.

      But they have way more representatives. That was the point of separation of power, to limit federal power, while California does have a state legislature that can do most of what it wants.

      The issue is that congress can regulate anything as “interstate commerce”