[arca_vorago]

I just have to say, this issue is one I have thought quite a bit about, and I'm not convinced the voting system itself is so bad. Don't get me wrong, I see the major downsides of a first past the post system, and I'm open to change, but in looking at the actual problem what I see is a different issue, namely, gerrymandering, at both federal and state level. My primary proposition as a systematic fix for gerrymandering is to increase the number of districts and reduce existing ones size.

Of course the other primary factor in all this is a fourth estate failing to do its job.

Also, duvergers law is not so concrete a truism as people like to think.

[vonzeppelin]

What do you think about removing the cap on the House of Representatives at 435? I think Democrats should really support this completely Constitutional fix to the electoral college instead of advocating that it be removed.

[em3rgent0rdr]

Interestingly US initially had much lower person per representative ratio. If that ratio was maintained, we would have thousands of representatives in the House, and so would be more representative.

[vonzeppelin]

I wanted to look it up and this is what I found:

>With the compromise constitutional ratio (1:30,000) in mind and given that the U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are currently about 313.9 million inhabitants of the United States, if the Constitution were being followed, there would be approximately 10,463 members of the House of Representatives.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/2157...

I'd be okay with this. It would really change the make up of our government. Senators would seem far more powerful in comparison.

The electoral college would be completely different as well. Using the population data on Wikipedia, at 1:30,000 California would have 1309 representatives and Wyoming would have 20. That would mean in the electoral college California would be worth 1311 points and Wyoming 22 vs 55 and 3 today.