I can't believe people buy and regurgitate this canard.
Ending The Electoral College
- Thread starter Tom Paris
- Start date
Instead we get the tyranny of the minority. Why do cons think that's better?
Even if you lose the tyranny part (which some elements of the constitution like checks and balances and the Bill of Rights are designed to do), it's still presumptively better that the majority rule vs the minority.
Correct. But that slavery-era rationale for the EC doesn't justify keeping the EC today. We don't need to give extra power to slave states or small states today to keep the Union.
The actual population of each state should determine its power in Congress.
The President should be chosen by national popular vote.
I'm not a "con," and I didn't necessarily say it is better or worse. I said there are pluses and minuses.
Explain that.
How would one-person-one-vote disenfranchise anyone?
How is some people having more voting power than others better than every person having equal voting power?
Repub voters in CA could matter if CA adopts a proportional system like Nebraska's.
Do you think they should to show how sincere their belief is in direct voting?
Well if you say so, it must be true. Also, I don't accept your phrasing of "minority rule". In terms of plusses of protecting against tyranny of the majority, that would be protecting against a majority of people getting together and oppressing the minority, because the minority, by definition, doesn't have the numbers.
I would phrase is "willful acceptance". You think we'll get a constitutional amendment to change it? Remember the serenity prayer? I refuse to get upset over things I have no control over.
No you fool. It’s an explanation as to why we have the electoral college as opposed to popular vote. It was written that way for those of you who can’t seem to understand the purpose of the EC.
Don't get me wrong, you're one of the good cons. I like discussing things with you, but at the end of the day, where we disagree, you're always on the con side.
Look around. It's the wealthy minority in charge today. They have a minority of the pitchforks, to be sure, but a majority of the power.
The elite Founders absolutely wanted to protect their class from the pitchforks. And designed a system that was both better than the royalist system it replaced but also preserved the power of the better sorts of people.
Since then we've had cycles of democratization alternating with revanchist periods. The revanchists have won. The question in this thread is whether democratization can fight back?
By "minority" I thought you were talking about the electoral college and the least populated states, not the uber wealthy. Hopefully when Trump is done the pendulum swings back in other direction.
That wasn't an explanation.
Let me ask you and everyone here this question:
Suppose the Constitution established that the President would be elected by popular vote.
And suppose some group suggested replacing the popular vote with a scheme that gave the people of Wyoming 3 times more power to pick the President than people of Michigan.
How do you sell that idea?
Per Gemini
The ratio of eligible voters (Citizen Voting Age Population, or CVAP) per Electoral Vote (EV) across all 50 states and Washington, D.C., reflects data from the U.S. Census Bureau and current Electoral College allocations.
The ratio of eligible voters (Citizen Voting Age Population, or CVAP) per Electoral Vote (EV) across all 50 states and Washington, D.C., reflects data from the U.S. Census Bureau and current Electoral College allocations.
- National Average: ~435,000 eligible voters per Electoral Vote.
- Calculation: $\text{Eligible Voters per EV} = \frac{\text{State Citizen Voting Age Population}}{\text{State Electoral Votes}}$
- Interpretation: A lower ratio means individual eligible voters carry more weight in determining an Electoral Vote.
Eligible Voters per Electoral Vote by State
| State / District | Electoral Votes (EV) | Citizen Voting Age Pop. (CVAP) | Eligible Voters per EV | Relative Voter Weight (vs. US Avg) |
| Wyoming | 3 | ~435,000 | ~145,000 | 3.00x |
| Vermont | 3 | ~510,000 | ~170,000 | 2.56x |
| Alaska | 3 | ~525,000 | ~175,000 | 2.49x |
| North Dakota | 3 | ~570,000 | ~190,000 | 2.29x |
| Rhode Island | 4 | ~820,000 | ~205,000 | 2.12x |
| South Dakota | 3 | ~650,000 | ~216,000 | 2.01x |
| Delaware | 3 | ~760,000 | ~253,000 | 1.72x |
| Washington, D.C. | 3 | ~515,000 | ~171,000 | 2.54x |
| Montana | 4 | ~845,000 | ~211,000 | 2.06x |
| Maine | 4 | ~1,100,000 | ~275,000 | 1.58x |
| New Hampshire | 4 | ~1,110,000 | ~277,000 | 1.57x |
| Hawaii | 4 | ~1,030,000 | ~257,000 | 1.69x |
| West Virginia | 4 | ~1,390,000 | ~347,000 | 1.25x |
| Idaho | 4 | ~1,380,000 | ~345,000 | 1.26x |
| Nebraska | 5 | ~1,380,000 | ~276,000 | 1.58x |
| New Mexico | 5 | ~1,510,000 | ~302,000 | 1.44x |
| Utah | 6 | ~2,250,000 | ~375,000 | 1.16x |
| Iowa | 6 | ~2,320,000 | ~386,000 | 1.13x |
| Kansas | 6 | ~2,080,000 | ~346,000 | 1.26x |
| Arkansas | 6 | ~2,200,000 | ~366,000 | 1.19x |
| Mississippi | 6 | ~2,180,000 | ~363,000 | 1.20x |
| Nevada | 6 | ~2,160,000 | ~360,000 | 1.21x |
| Connecticut | 7 | ~2,630,000 | ~375,000 | 1.16x |
| Oklahoma | 7 | ~2,800,000 | ~400,000 | 1.09x |
| Kentucky | 8 | ~3,320,000 | ~415,000 | 1.05x |
| Louisiana | 8 | ~3,350,000 | ~418,000 | 1.04x |
| Oregon | 8 | ~3,180,000 | ~397,000 | 1.10x |
| Alabama | 9 | ~3,730,000 | ~414,000 | 1.05x |
| South Carolina | 9 | ~3,950,000 | ~438,000 | 0.99x |
| Colorado | 10 | ~4,200,000 | ~420,000 | 1.04x |
| Maryland | 10 | ~4,350,000 | ~435,000 | 1.00x |
| Minnesota | 10 | ~4,180,000 | ~418,000 | 1.04x |
| Missouri | 10 | ~4,550,000 | ~455,000 | 0.96x |
| Wisconsin | 10 | ~4,380,000 | ~438,000 | 0.99x |
| Arizona | 11 | ~5,150,000 | ~468,000 | 0.93x |
| Indiana | 11 | ~4,950,000 | ~450,000 | 0.97x |
| Massachusetts | 11 | ~5,050,000 | ~459,000 | 0.95x |
| Tennessee | 11 | ~5,180,000 | ~470,000 | 0.93x |
| Washington | 12 | ~5,450,000 | ~454,000 | 0.96x |
| Virginia | 13 | ~6,180,000 | ~475,000 | 0.92x |
| New Jersey | 14 | ~6,300,000 | ~450,000 | 0.97x |
| Michigan | 15 | ~7,520,000 | ~501,000 | 0.87x |
| North Carolina | 16 | ~7,750,000 | ~484,000 | 0.90x |
| Georgia | 16 | ~7,550,000 | ~471,000 | 0.92x |
| Ohio | 17 | ~8,780,000 | ~516,000 | 0.84x |
| Illinois | 19 | ~8,850,000 | ~465,000 | 0.94x |
| Pennsylvania | 19 | ~9,700,000 | ~510,000 | 0.85x |
| New York | 28 | ~13,600,000 | ~485,000 | 0.90x |
| Florida | 30 | ~15,300,000 | ~510,000 | 0.85x |
| Texas | 40 | ~18,600,000 | ~465,000 | 0.94x |
| California | 54 | ~25,900,000 | ~480,000 | 0.91x |
Key Takeaways
- Total Population vs. Eligible Voter Population: While total population metrics (including non-citizens and children) show Texas and California with over 700k residents per Electoral Vote, focusing strictly on eligible voters (citizens 18+) lowers the per-EV count for states with larger non-citizen or youth populations (like California and Texas).
- The "Small State Advantage": Small states like Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska have fewer total citizens per Electoral Vote, making each voter's mathematical weight up to 2.5x to 3x the national average.
- Mid-sized / Large State Convergence: Most states with 10 or more Electoral Votes cluster within a tight range of 450,000 to 515,000 eligible voters per Electoral Vote. For localized voting and registration guidelines, consult the official U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Those of us who think ALL people in a state should be equally represented might prefer this listing. The disparities are somewhat worse.
----------------------------------------
[per Gemini]
The table below uses the official U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Apportionment Population alongside current Electoral College allocations.
----------------------------------------
[per Gemini]
The table below uses the official U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Apportionment Population alongside current Electoral College allocations.
- National Average: ~615,000 residents per Electoral Vote.
- Calculation: $\text{Population per EV} = \frac{\text{State Total Resident/Apportionment Population}}{\text{State Electoral Votes}}$
- Interpretation: A lower ratio means residents have more mathematical weight per Electoral Vote.
Total Population per Electoral Vote by State
| State / District | Electoral Votes (EV) | Total Apportionment Population | Total Population per EV | Relative Voter Weight (vs. US Avg) |
| Wyoming | 3 | 577,719 | 192,573 | 3.20x |
| Vermont | 3 | 643,503 | 214,501 | 2.87x |
| Alaska | 3 | 736,081 | 245,360 | 2.51x |
| North Dakota | 3 | 779,702 | 259,901 | 2.37x |
| Rhode Island | 4 | 1,098,163 | 274,541 | 2.24x |
| South Dakota | 3 | 887,770 | 295,923 | 2.08x |
| Delaware | 3 | 990,837 | 330,279 | 1.86x |
| Washington, D.C. | 3 | 689,545 | 229,848 | 2.68x |
| Montana | 4 | 1,085,407 | 271,352 | 2.27x |
| Maine | 4 | 1,363,582 | 340,896 | 1.81x |
| New Hampshire | 4 | 1,378,581 | 344,645 | 1.79x |
| Hawaii | 4 | 1,461,530 | 365,383 | 1.68x |
| West Virginia | 4 | 1,795,045 | 448,761 | 1.37x |
| Idaho | 4 | 1,840,961 | 460,240 | 1.34x |
| Nebraska | 5 | 1,963,333 | 392,667 | 1.57x |
| New Mexico | 5 | 2,120,220 | 424,044 | 1.45x |
| Utah | 6 | 3,275,252 | 545,875 | 1.13x |
| Iowa | 6 | 3,193,079 | 532,180 | 1.16x |
| Kansas | 6 | 2,940,865 | 490,144 | 1.26x |
| Arkansas | 6 | 3,013,756 | 502,293 | 1.23x |
| Mississippi | 6 | 2,963,914 | 493,986 | 1.25x |
| Nevada | 6 | 3,108,462 | 518,077 | 1.19x |
| Connecticut | 7 | 3,610,218 | 515,745 | 1.19x |
| Oklahoma | 7 | 3,964,051 | 566,293 | 1.09x |
| Kentucky | 8 | 4,509,394 | 563,674 | 1.09x |
| Louisiana | 8 | 4,661,468 | 582,684 | 1.06x |
| Oregon | 8 | 4,243,791 | 530,474 | 1.16x |
| Alabama | 9 | 5,030,053 | 558,895 | 1.10x |
| South Carolina | 9 | 5,124,712 | 569,412 | 1.08x |
| Colorado | 10 | 5,782,171 | 578,217 | 1.07x |
| Maryland | 10 | 6,185,278 | 618,528 | 1.00x |
| Minnesota | 10 | 5,714,300 | 571,430 | 1.08x |
| Missouri | 10 | 6,160,281 | 616,028 | 1.00x |
| Wisconsin | 10 | 5,897,473 | 589,747 | 1.04x |
| Arizona | 11 | 7,158,923 | 650,811 | 0.95x |
| Indiana | 11 | 6,794,449 | 617,677 | 1.00x |
| Massachusetts | 11 | 7,033,469 | 639,406 | 0.96x |
| Tennessee | 11 | 6,916,897 | 628,809 | 0.98x |
| Washington | 12 | 7,715,946 | 642,996 | 0.96x |
| Virginia | 13 | 8,654,542 | 665,734 | 0.92x |
| New Jersey | 14 | 9,294,493 | 663,892 | 0.93x |
| Michigan | 15 | 10,084,442 | 672,296 | 0.92x |
| North Carolina | 16 | 10,453,948 | 653,372 | 0.94x |
| Georgia | 16 | 10,725,274 | 670,330 | 0.92x |
| Ohio | 17 | 11,808,848 | 694,638 | 0.89x |
| Illinois | 19 | 12,822,782 | 674,883 | 0.91x |
| Pennsylvania | 19 | 13,011,844 | 684,834 | 0.90x |
| New York | 28 | 20,215,751 | 721,991 | 0.85x |
| Florida | 30 | 21,569,932 | 718,998 | 0.86x |
| Texas | 40 | 29,183,290 | 729,582 | 0.84x |
| California | 54 | 39,576,757 | 732,903 | 0.84x |
Shift from Eligible Voters to Total Population
- Disparity Spans widen slightly: Under total population, the difference between the most over-represented state (Wyoming at ~192k/EV) and the most under-represented state (California at ~733k/EV) rises to 3.81x.
- Shift in Large States: States like Texas and California feature a higher ratio of non-citizens and minors relative to states like Maine or Vermont. Switch-over to total population increases their total population per Electoral Vote, reducing their relative per-capita weight even further compared to eligible-voter metrics.
Another problem with the EC: Only voters in swing states matter.
It's simply not true that without the EC only people in big cities would get to shape issues and choose candidates. That might have been true in the days of the steam engine and retail, in-person politics. But in today's media-dominated world, politicians and parties and special interests can reach everyone with every message they care to send.
I live in safely blue Maryland. My friends in Virginia and family in NC get inundated with ads and calls and more. I don't. Why should I?
If you are a Republican in my state or a Democrat in S.Carolina or Iowa, your vote for President doesn't count. How is that OK?
[per Gemini]
All 50 states and Washington, D.C., are ranked below by their vote margin in the 2024 presidential election, ordered from the most strongly Republican ("red") to the most strongly Democratic ("blue") based on official certified results.
Detailed state-by-state breakdowns, certified turnout totals, and historic comparisons are available on the AP News Live Election Results Map and the USAFacts Red and Blue States Dashboard.
It's simply not true that without the EC only people in big cities would get to shape issues and choose candidates. That might have been true in the days of the steam engine and retail, in-person politics. But in today's media-dominated world, politicians and parties and special interests can reach everyone with every message they care to send.
I live in safely blue Maryland. My friends in Virginia and family in NC get inundated with ads and calls and more. I don't. Why should I?
If you are a Republican in my state or a Democrat in S.Carolina or Iowa, your vote for President doesn't count. How is that OK?
[per Gemini]
All 50 states and Washington, D.C., are ranked below by their vote margin in the 2024 presidential election, ordered from the most strongly Republican ("red") to the most strongly Democratic ("blue") based on official certified results.
Detailed state-by-state breakdowns, certified turnout totals, and historic comparisons are available on the AP News Live Election Results Map and the USAFacts Red and Blue States Dashboard.
2024 Presidential Election State Ranking by Vote Margin
| Rank | State / District | Winning Party | Margin of Victory |
| 1 | Wyoming | Red | R +46% |
| 2 | West Virginia | Red | R +42% |
| 3 | Idaho | Red | R +36% |
| 4 | North Dakota | Red | R +36% |
| 5 | Oklahoma | Red | R +34% |
| 6 | Arkansas | Red | R +31% |
| 7 | Kentucky | Red | R +31% |
| 8 | Alabama | Red | R +30% |
| 9 | Tennessee | Red | R +30% |
| 10 | South Dakota | Red | R +29% |
| 11 | Mississippi | Red | R +23% |
| 12 | Louisiana | Red | R +22% |
| 13 | Utah | Red | R +22% |
| 14 | Montana | Red | R +20% |
| 15 | Nebraska | Red | R +20% |
| 16 | Indiana | Red | R +19% |
| 17 | Missouri | Red | R +18% |
| 18 | South Carolina | Red | R +18% |
| 19 | Kansas | Red | R +16% |
| 20 | Delaware (Red District/Contest) | Red | R +15% |
| 21 | Texas | Red | R +14% |
| 22 | Florida | Red | R +13% |
| 23 | Iowa | Red | R +13% |
| 24 | Ohio | Red | R +11% |
| 25 | Alaska | Red | R +10% |
| 26 | Arizona | Red | R +6% |
| 27 | North Carolina | Red | R +3% |
| 28 | Nevada | Red | R +3% |
| 29 | Georgia | Red | R +2% |
| 30 | Pennsylvania | Red | R +2% |
| 31 | Michigan | Red | R +1% |
| 32 | Wisconsin | Red | R +<1% |
| 33 | New Hampshire | Blue | D +3% |
| 34 | Minnesota | Blue | D +4% |
| 35 | New Mexico | Blue | D +6% |
| 36 | New Jersey | Blue | D +6% |
| 37 | Virginia | Blue | D +6% |
| 38 | Maine | Blue | D +7% |
| 39 | Colorado | Blue | D +11% |
| 40 | Illinois | Blue | D +11% |
| 41 | New York | Blue | D +13% |
| 42 | Oregon | Blue | D +14% |
| 43 | Rhode Island | Blue | D +14% |
| 44 | Connecticut | Blue | D +15% |
| 45 | Delaware | Blue | D +15% |
| 46 | Washington | Blue | D +18% |
| 47 | California | Blue | D +20% |
| 48 | Hawaii | Blue | D +23% |
| 49 | Massachusetts | Blue | D +25% |
| 50 | Maryland | Blue | D +29% |
| 51 | Vermont | Blue | D +32% |
| 52 | District of Columbia | Blue | D +84% |
Key Takeaways
- Strongest Red States: Wyoming (+46%), West Virginia (+42%), Idaho (+36%), and North Dakota (+36%) recorded the highest margins of victory for the Republican ticket.
- Strongest Blue States & Territories: The District of Columbia (+84%), Vermont (+32%), Maryland (+29%), and Massachusetts (+25%) recorded the highest margins of victory for the Democratic ticket.
- Battleground Margins: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona were all decided by single-digit margins (ranging from <1% to 6%).
When someone says we should end the electoral college, it's clear they don't understand the basic concepts of how the federal government was designed. It's somewhat understandable given how much the Commerce Clause has been corrupted, but it's just sad there are so many uneducated and/or oblivious people.
What issues meaning to be addressed by the Electoral College at it's creation would you say are the most relevant now?
Declaration of awesomeness? Check.
Any substance at all to back this alleged awesomeness? Completely lacking
As I'm quite aware of the history and formation of our government, I'd love Story Time by Finance85. Hopefully it's something new and exciting ... aliens and chemtrails, perhaps? Lemme get my blankie and hot cocoa, because this should be esssightin'
You are sniffing up the right tree.
this is not so much about urban rural. It is classically republican. You need to get to 270, which means assembling a coalition of interests, that are roughly tied to population. So democratic in nature as on average a coalition is going to require some in the middle.
interestingly when you look at the 5% of districts with the smallest populations (ie, the “overrepresented”) they currently run 15-8 d. And when you look at the 5% with the largest populations (ie, the “underrepresented”), they run 19-3 r.
Senators are essentially a wash at the low end.
Last edited:
It’s also why the Senate exists.
Nobody much talks about it but the “best way” to fix the EC, because I don’t think it will be able to be undone by one party, is instead update the number of representatives / EC.
Most people do not realize the EC numbers are tied to the total combined numbers of Senators and Reps. And the last time the house numbers were really bumped up was 110 years ago. We went from 81 EC in 1788 to 481 by 1908. And we have been sitting in the 530s since 1912. The US had 92 million people in 1910 and we have 350 million now. And this is why the EC and the house, in addition to the Senate, are now working to serve majorly over represent rural state voters. They get much more representation and voting power as @What Would Jesus Do? tables show, and already get two Senators.
The best fix is to readjust to population and have about 1400-1800 House of Representatives and and 1500-1900 EC votes. It match the old representation numbers and a huge side benefit it would put the brakes on gerrymandering too.
It’s very logical and the only way to match the intent of both the House of Representatives and EC that are suppose to be reflective and tied to population. How is that possible if no increase in numbers when population increases over 3 fold.
I think you could get politicians on both sides to go for it because another 1000 seats of power would be enticing to both sides. It would be better representation too. Many more communities would have a local representative and gerrymandering would be near impossible, like in Tallahassee where we lately get stuck with gerrymandered district that has Panama City GOP candidates getting elected despite our County being by far the most populated in district. They can have their person and we can have ours. And you would not have a situation where one party consistently loses popular vote but wins EC.
Last edited:
Getting rid of the Senate would fix a lot of problems, even if we don't also shift to electing the President by popular vote.
Gemini points out ....
Several prominent historical figures in American politics have either openly advocated for getting rid of the U.S. Senate or argued strongly against having a second legislative body altogether.
Founding Era Opponents of the Senate
- Benjamin Franklin: During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Franklin favored a single, unicameral national legislature. He famously mocked bicameral systems like the Senate, comparing a two-chamber legislature to a cart with "one horse before... and another behind it, both pulling in opposite directions."
- Thomas Paine: The influential Revolutionary writer was a staunch advocate for unicameralism. In works like Common Sense and Rights of Man, Paine argued that upper legislative chambers (like the Senate or British House of Lords) existed primarily to protect aristocracy, serving as an unnecessary check on the democratic will of the people.
- Thaddeus Stevens: A leader of the Radical Republicans during the Civil War and Reconstruction era, Stevens grew deeply frustrated with the Senate's conservative pushback against full civil rights and economic emancipation for formerly enslaved people. He viewed the Senate as an undemocratic body designed to stifle progress.
- Victor Berger: In 1911, Berger—the first Socialist elected to the U.S. House of Representatives—introduced a formal constitutional amendment (H.J. Res. 79) to eliminate the Senate entirely. He called the Senate an "obstructive and useless body" that served corporate interests, proposing that its powers be transferred directly to the House and subject to popular national referendums.
- George W. Norris: While the Nebraska Senator didn't manage to dismantle the U.S. Senate, he successfully led the campaign to abolish his own state’s senate in 1934. Norris argued that dual legislative chambers were redundant, prone to backroom deals, and overly complex, transforming Nebraska into the nation's only unicameral state legislature.
While I am a traditionalist, the Senate's unique utility and role in the original federalist scheme passed away when it became popularly elected. But what I would probably do is take those 100 extra seats and move them to the house side. It would reduce the average population per district from about 760k to about 618k. Baby steps.
Do we actually need more people in the House or just more proportional voting?
We could, for example, let every State elect up to 5 Representatives, who then have to decide how to allocate that state's population-based percentage of the total House vote.
So, maybe CA gets 115 votes out of a total of 1000 (because CA has 11.5% of the US population). They elect 5 people who then have to decide how to cast their votes on each bill.
Meanwhile, Wyoming's Reps would decide how to cast their 1.7 votes (based on having 0.17% of the US population.
Alternatively, big states like CA or TX could just divide into several separate states. Thereby gaining a lot of seats in the Senate.
If CA split into 10 states, it would jump from having 2% of the power in the Senate (2 out of 100 votes) to having 17% (20 out of 118).
Unlike the gerrymander wars, that's not a cheat. It's just making the Senate more representative.
If CA split into 10 states, it would jump from having 2% of the power in the Senate (2 out of 100 votes) to having 17% (20 out of 118).
Unlike the gerrymander wars, that's not a cheat. It's just making the Senate more representative.
I'm a huge believer that we need more representatives -- probably more than 535 -- in order to break party dominance and reorient the house toward constituent representation. (I also would speculate -- with a capital S - that smaller districts might well make political gerrymandering a little harder.) I oppose proportional state voting as you describe it. It's funny you mention the electoral representation impacts - I was actually eyeballing that not so much from the perspective of the house, which is relatively easy, but with respect to the electoral college, which is a little more subtle. At the very low range of the smaller states (first 10 or so), it's probably close to a wash by party. In the next quintile, my wild guess is that it would be a slight adverse effect on R-leaning states.
I'm not sure that's really that distinct from gerrymandering. It's just fun with math until we basically become italy. The more rational thing is just to eliminate the senate since it doesn't really do anything distinct.
The Senate doesn’t really do anything distinct?
What about ratifying treaties? What about conducting impeachment trials? What about confirming judicial appointees and cabinet secretary nominees?
Sigh. Not in terms of roles or assigned responsibilities. In terms of its institutional dynamic. It's just another a popularly elected body. The only thing that really distinguishes its operational dynamic is the filibuster, which is a borderline extraconstitutional power. (I say borderline because it's 'technically' constitutional since the constitution gives each house the power to set its internal rules of operation).
I'm reminded of years ago, when a senior inhouse counsel, who was a brilliant but quirky ex-literature professor, was interviewing a candidate for a position. The candidate had a very similar background , and he provided gushing reviews of the candidate up the chain. His boss's reaction was, "yes, but we already have one of you."
So in addition to all of its current responsibilities, you want the House of Representatives to handle all cabinet secretary appointments as well as hundreds of judicial nominees every year?
Sure, why not. How are they less capable of doing so than the senate? Institutionally.
I’m thinking more in terms of workload than institutional capability.
You falsely claimed the Senate doesn’t really do anything distinct. In fact, each chamber has its own unique responsibilities. And it seems to me that dissolving either chamber and expecting the other one to simply absorb the additional workload is kind of unreasonable.
Falsely? I’m speaking in terms of its institutional structure and what that contributes the the roles and responsibilities.
As to workload, the current estimate is the house spends 8% of its floor time on votes.
High population states vs low population states,.. and the need to maintain a modicum of equality between them.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated
CLEMSON FOOTBALL AUGUST CAMP: What we are hearing on true freshmen WRs Gordon Sellars and Naeem Burroughs
-
02
Tiger Illustrated
CLEMSON FOOTBALL AUGUST CAMP: Our Thursday update on Andy Burburija, Vic Burley, Champ Thompson and C.J. Kubah-Taylor
-
03
Tiger Illustrated
Additional insight behind the messaging out of Clemson this month
-
04
Tiger Illustrated
CLEMSON FOOTBALL AUGUST CAMP: What we are hearing on transfer back Chris Johnson
-
05
Tiger Illustrated
CLEMSON FOOTBALL AUGUST CAMP: Our Wednesday update on true freshman QB Tait Reynolds