ashe

The real issue is the 2 party system. They both have essentially manipulated the voting system that we have a winner take all system in every state. If you are a Republican in California you essentially have no representation. The Same this goes for if you are a Democrat in Kansas.

The word that comes to mind starts with an F but it isn't Free

FINS I remember those history lessons to somewhat.

They don't have to be physically present to vote, they can vote through telecommunications. Telecommuting to work is fairly common these days in the private sector, time we modernized our government. Their rule to physically be present is only a rule they made not one enshrined in the Constitution. The only time in the Constitution they have to be physically present is when they are sworn into office, which an amendment could fix or just a ruling that teleconferencing qualified as physically present so long as they were in their district office.

FINS is also correct in that all 50 states are considered sovereign states. The Federal government often oversteps its true authority given in the US Constitution. As such the winner take all for each individual state preserves their sovereignty moving to a system such as you suggest Heels, reducing the power of the states and again gives to much power to a national elite that has done little to help rural America for the last 30 years.

The reality is, the smaller states have always been silenced. To what degree is variable. If it was always kept at even representation, the silencing would grow exponentially as states like California and New York grow faster than fly over territory.

One problem is people have lost the understanding that we were set up as a collective of states, for the purpose of protecting the sovereignty of those states. Our needs here are not the same as the needs in Oregon (I'm tired of always using California as an example). Now states are almost looked at like counties were 30 years s ago. People used to have patriotism for their state. I remember when in NC, in two grades (I think 4th and 8th) the history taught was only about NC. Now with how people can move so easily, the lines are blurred and people have lost connect to their home.

jrscott295 - The problem with your idea is voting. There are no proxies allowed in Congress. They must be physically present to vote.

JR, your are silencing the minority vote all states with the current system.

No need to put them in DC, Fins if you have them telecommute, they get an office in their district and do everything through teleconferencing. Right now they get travel budgets, district office budget, DC office budget, staff budget etc. The savings by cutting out half of that would more than pay for telecommuting.

That would essentially silence the smaller states Heels and thus is not a good idea. Keep in mind over 2/3rds of the population live in 15 states.

Jr, the problem with a reapportionment is a physical one. There is no where to put all the representatives. But yes, it is long over due.

I do think there should be changes to the electoral college. As much as people claim it would silence the voice of the less populated states, it does just that. States should be forced to split their votes. For instance in NC Trump Should have gotten 8 Clinton 7 and Johnson 0. Johnson would have needed to get 6.6% to get a single vote.

The Electoral College was created to specifically keep one very populous state from ruling the others. Assuming you don't live in the 10 most populous states, you should be very much against changing the Electoral College because any change to it will be far less favorable to you. More than half the population lives in those 10 states.

We are long overdue for a new apportionment of the US House though, which oddly enough if you increased it would increase Electoral Votes. Keep in mind we have the same number of House Members that we had in 1911. We have more than three times the population we had then. 1 US House Rep today represents close to 800,000 people, in 1789 when the Constitution was put in effect the ratio was 1 in 33,000. Currently the UK's House of Commons has 1 per 100,000, surely we could meet that. The problem is that the membership of the House is set by the House, meaning they are unlikely to increase their numbers as it means a decrease in power. However increasing it would give an increased voice to the people. If we met the UK's representation then the US House should have 3,088 members. If we restored the original ratio it would be 9,356 members. Given our technology level they could just telecommute ensuring they stayed in the districts they represented. That would eliminate much of their expenses.

I'm a open minded person. I plan on giving Trump 10X the respect and cooperation the Republicans gave Obama.

If the electoral college is scraped the state of California will elect a democrat president each election. Thats the purpose of the college to keep a populous state from controlling an election.

It's insulting to the voters that we have elected people that don't comprehend our own constitution. They may not like trump, but he was elected with the very system our founders created. Is it time to change it? That's debatable. But he's not illegitimate. One could better argue that Hillary was an illegitimate candidate because the DNC manipulated the primary.

It really shows how thin skinned these politicians are, after all you didn't have massive amounts of GOP politicians boycotting Obama's inauguration despite some feeling he was not legitimate.

Trump doesn't care if folks like him or not, which is something unique in a politician. He wants to get things done, and is willing to work with whoever to accomplish something. By boycotting his inauguration they just make enemies of Trump and are less likely to find an ear to listen to their point of view.

They should be following the example of Kanye West and Steve Harvey, open up a dialogue. Be supportive and see how the President elect can help them accomplish the things they want to. All we are seeing is the same arrogance that Obama showed when he stated I won, and then refused to do any negotiations with the GOP. As such because he had so little passed by Congress almost everything he did can be undone by the stroke of a pen. In essence the Democrats are refusing to learn from history.

I'm actually glad he is using the Twitter account instead of remaining dependent on the MSM to get the story right. So far almost every story in the MSM I've seen has lead with a prejudicial headline and opening paragraph. They no longer report the facts but rather tell their readers/listeners how to think about their "facts."

If he acted presidential for 1/10th of a second and if they would take away his Twitter account it might help.

According to the media a growing list of lawmakers are boycotting the Trump inauguration, saying he his not a legitimate president or they oppose his policies. The man hasn't even taken office, so he hasn't made any policies yet. Why not give him a chance first, then protest if you don't agree with how the country is being run.