Constitutional Amendments that will never happen but should

[Arroyo_Doble]

Unless you're willing to give up the Electoral College, this is still a dumb idea. This would essentially give the Democratic candidate near half the votes needed to win the presidency. With NY and Cali alone would put them almost at 300. This would leave the GOP, or any other candidate, needing to win every other state.

The Electoral College would consist of about 6300 electors. California and New York combined would have a great deal more than 300 (as would Texas).

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

Increasing the size of the House would necessarily increase the size of the College.

[Generation Why?]

And just what would happen to the electoral college? It would be as if it did not exist.

I would like to revamp the Electoral College to 435 votes. you win the congressional district, you get the vote. It is a more accurate representation of the people in my opinion.

[NJCardFan]

The Electoral College would consist of about 6300 electors. California and New York combined would have a great deal more than 300 (as would Texas).

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

Increasing the size of the House would necessarily increase the size of the College.

And the most populated cities would pick the president and as we all know, all urban areas are overwhelmingly Democrat. While the GOP would carry the midwest, rural, and most suburban areas, all of those would never stack up against places like NY and Cali. Carrying both of those states would sew up the White House for the Dems for eternity so it's easy to see why you think this would be a good idea.

[Arroyo_Doble]

And the most populated cities would pick the president and as we all know, all urban areas are overwhelmingly Democrat. While the GOP would carry the midwest, rural, and most suburban areas, all of those would never stack up against places like NY and Cali. Carrying both of those states would sew up the White House for the Dems for eternity so it's easy to see why you think this would be a good idea.

How?

If there are over 6000 electors, you think California and New York get about 3000 of them?

[Odysseus]

I asked everyone I knew that I thought was going to vote for Barry..."Doesn't exempting himself from Barrycare (the single greatest accomplishment of his presidency, in his mind) send up any kind of red flag for you?"

And their response?

I would like to revamp the Electoral College to 435 votes. you win the congressional district, you get the vote. It is a more accurate representation of the people in my opinion.

That would certain level the playing field. Right now, California and New York account for roughly one-third of the votes needed for an Electoral majority. That pretty much flies in the face of the original intent of the Electoral College. By breaking down to congressional districts, the states would be less monolithically blue and red, and candidates would have to campaign in swing districts, rather than swing states. It would also put parts of the bigger states into play and make the elections more competitive within them.

How?

If there are over 6000 electors, you think California and New York get about 3000 of them?

Roughly the same proportion as they get now. It wouldn't change anything, except the total number of electors, who would still be bound by the same rules.