Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
While the electoral college is certainly an anachronism, I think it's mostly harmless in that the votes are apportioned by population.
The US Senate is far more problematic, IMHO. Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Delaware and Alaska all have significantly less than 1 million residents. Yet they all get 2 Senators just like New York, California and Texas who each have over 20 million residents (CA has over 35 million). DC has more people than Wyoming and gets zero.
Put that in your hookah and smoke it.
|
Repeal the 17th Amendment and let the Senate represent the States instead of the people as was intended in the first place.
"Originally, each Senator was elected by his state's legislature to represent that state in the Senate.[1] This was intended to protect each state's power within the federation established by the Constitution by having its own direct representation in the Congress. While an unqualified candidate might win a popular-vote majority through demagoguery or superficial qualities, the legislature, which could deliberate on its choice, and whose members had been selected by their constituents and had experience in politics, were thought safe from such folly. Finally, election by the legislature was expected to insulate Senators from the distraction of public campaigning for election or re-election, leaving them free to concentrate on the great business of the federal government. This last purpose was also served by the six-year term for Senators, compared to the two-year term for U.S. Representatives."
From Wikipedia.