It has become a major concern that the winner of the U.S. popular vote will lose the presidential election if he/she doesn't also win the electoral vote, as happened in 2000 and 2016, and has resulted in calls for the abolition of the Electoral College. Odds of that are pretty slim.
But the number of Electors is determined by the number of Senators and Representatives, and while the Constitution provides that every state shall have two Senators, it is not specific about the number of Represenatives, which has varied over time. The current number of 435 was set by and limited by the Reapportionment Act of 1929. After every census that number of Representatives is distributed among the states according to a formula that starts with the fact that the state with the smallest population -- currently Wyoming -- gets one Represenative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappo...nt_Act_of_1929
One major consequence is that some congressional districts have far more people than others, and citizens of some states have less influence in Congress individually than others.
But that 1929 law can be changed by Congress. If the number of Representatives was expanded after every census so that each one served roughly the same number of people as the population of the smallest state, it would give more representation in the House to the more populous states, and it would bring the Electoral College vote more closely in line with the popular vote.
The current population of Wyoming is about 580,000. If the House was expanded on that basis, there would be about 540 members of the House. That's not a wildly unmanageable number, and wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment.
What's wrong with this plan?
But the number of Electors is determined by the number of Senators and Representatives, and while the Constitution provides that every state shall have two Senators, it is not specific about the number of Represenatives, which has varied over time. The current number of 435 was set by and limited by the Reapportionment Act of 1929. After every census that number of Representatives is distributed among the states according to a formula that starts with the fact that the state with the smallest population -- currently Wyoming -- gets one Represenative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappo...nt_Act_of_1929
One major consequence is that some congressional districts have far more people than others, and citizens of some states have less influence in Congress individually than others.
But that 1929 law can be changed by Congress. If the number of Representatives was expanded after every census so that each one served roughly the same number of people as the population of the smallest state, it would give more representation in the House to the more populous states, and it would bring the Electoral College vote more closely in line with the popular vote.
The current population of Wyoming is about 580,000. If the House was expanded on that basis, there would be about 540 members of the House. That's not a wildly unmanageable number, and wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment.
What's wrong with this plan?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2YmfYst
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire