or, the number of representatives that would offer the true number of “electors”.
This will not be some professorial debate about the founders’ intention, except to acknowledge their fear of direct democracy. Their desire, as I understand it, was to protect the minority, as well as to apportion to the States their own “union” in our union.
I will not be offering any links, any news stories, any “institute” thought. Instead, I will just be offering my own opinion, based upon my own knowledge and understanding.
The number of “electors” of the electoral college, is determined by the number of representatives each states holds. Every state has at least 2 senators and 1 house member. The number of house members is based upon “population”, and no matter what, every “state” has at least one.
Here is where, in my opinion “we” went wrong many decades ago. The number of house members, based upon population, and equal number of representation, would have grown the House of Representations substantially into the thousands, because of population.
In 1929 or so, the US House passed a bill that actually limited the House of Representatives to a number of 435. What this did was essentially give “more” power to the smaller states, because each state was guaranteed at least 1, no matter the population, and therefore limited the representation of larger states, this by denying them “equal” representation.
What would the number of the “House of Representatives” be if population were actually the standard for equal representation by population numbers, rather than being limited by the total number of 435?
If the House were not limited by 435, and there were equal representation in the House based upon population; and then this number was applied toward the “electoral college”, who would have been the winner of the 2016 presidential election?
Just asking, and not supporting eliminating the electoral college. Instead, I am pondering “equal” representation, which might be the same thing… This is the “bug” that should be fixed, imho.