• acosmichippo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days 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.

    • Upsidedownturtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Not entirely. An act of congress is all that is needed to repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and allow more members of the house to be seated. Increase the number of house members from 437 (approx 750,000 citizens per rep) to 1093 (2.5x increase yielding approx 300,000 citizens per rep). This is roughly the same ratio of house reps to citizens when this bill was passed nearly 100 years ago.

      A capped house significantly broke the balance between populous states and small states further in the favor of the small states. Ending this imbalance would move both the executive branch and the legislature to more accurately represent the will of the people.

      • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        even in that scenario you’re relying on some senators/reps of less populous states to cede power. there’s no getting around that fundamental problem.

    • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days 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@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day 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.

        • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          It would also probably be a constant battle to keep it in effect anyway, because every state that has entered the compact can always leave. As long as you can shut off the compact by removing one or two states from it, it will be an unstable mess.