Is it possible to abolish the House of Representatives?

[para bellum]

I haven't seen anyone—D or R—call for a change in how we allocate or elect Senators; it's the Electoral College that gets the heat.

See posts 14 and 48 this thread. That is a very conventional view with dems.

The EC also, you are correct. The reason is the same- every State gets 2 electors in addition to the electors based on the census (reflected by # of congressional districts). According to Democrats, smaller states are "over represented" in the EC as a result. (the same argument they make about the Senate)

The solution to that I like the best is to simply do away with winner-take-all and require every State to use the Congressional District Method, like Maine and Nebraska. EV's are allocated by district, and the remaining two go to the overall State winner. More people (such as California Republicans, who might as well stay home) would have their votes count, and it would all but do away with the election being determined by a half dozen or so swing states as the rest get ignored. Easy peasy.

I have thought about this a lot, and I am not sure about it.

In principle, I think allocating electors that way is workable.

There is one effect that seems pretty likely, and that is the House of Representatives would be more likely to be controlled by the same party as the White House in presidential election years.

Not certain, but likely. The makeup of the house reflects the will of the 435 congressional districts, so a majority of districts should be more reflective of the popular vote nationwide.

That might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing- I honestly can't say.

And obviously it would have to be nationwide, because it would make every congressional district just as important as any other. Democrats in California aren't going to willingly give up the winner-take-all system, because the northern and eastern parts of the State would go red, and California's importance in Presidential elections is diminished.

E.G. How many republican representatives are there from California? Give that many electoral votes to Trump...

I agree, it would get rid of the current system where the White House is decided by 6 States.

It would require a Constitutional amendment to direct States to allocate in that fashion, since right now it's up to the State Legislatures.

It's a change that sort of tilts away from the Constitutional intent of States electing the President and Vice President.

I don't think dems would go for it, because they still view the 2 senators per State (and the 2 EV's associated with them) as "undemocratic".

 

[Esdraelon]

it can be officially revised, just like the repeal of Prohibition

Yes, it can. It would require an amendment to the Constitution. In the state of our politics today, reaching the level of consent for that would be IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Esdraelon]

Of course, the swindlers themselves will not give up power, but this can be achieved popularly and by pressure from state governments.

An article V convention of the states would probably be even an more difficult path to a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

No.

 

[Rigby5]

See posts 14 and 48 this thread. That is a very conventional view with dems.

The EC also, you are correct. The reason is the same- every State gets 2 electors in addition to the electors based on the census (reflected by # of congressional districts). According to Democrats, smaller states are "over represented" in the EC as a result. (the same argument they make about the Senate)

I have thought about this a lot, and I am not sure about it.

In principle, I think allocating electors that way is workable.

There is one effect that seems pretty likely, and that is the House of Representatives would be more likely to be controlled by the same party as the White House in presidential election years.

Not certain, but likely. The makeup of the house reflects the will of the 435 congressional districts, so a majority of districts should be more reflective of the popular vote nationwide.

That might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing- I honestly can't say.

And obviously it would have to be nationwide, because it would make every congressional district just as important as any other. Democrats in California aren't going to willingly give up the winner-take-all system, because the northern and eastern parts of the State would go red, and California's importance in Presidential elections is diminished.

E.G. How many republican representatives are there from California? Give that many electoral votes to Trump...

I agree, it would get rid of the current system where the White House is decided by 6 States.

It would require a Constitutional amendment to direct States to allocate in that fashion, since right now it's up to the State Legislatures.

It's a change that sort of tilts away from the Constitutional intent of States electing the President and Vice President.

I don't think dems would go for it, because they still view the 2 senators per State (and the 2 EV's associated with them) as "undemocratic".

Break down highly populated states in to several states, so that all states had about the same population.
Then any complaint goes away.