Connecticut will award electoral college votes to Popular Vote winner

[antaeus]

Avoiding tyranny of the majority is a bare minimum. This isn't even tinkering anymore, it is just telling states to ignore the means by which they joined the Union in the first place. It isn't likely that Iowa would secede obviously, but my point is that you would just be screwing over places like this and they would end up becoming worse off in the long run.

There are plenty of laws on the books that are different now to when the majority of states joined the union. The constitution has been amended time and again. There's no need for hyperbole. As I said, the system is designed to be updated.

I understand your point though and agree. To some people in states who have received more than their fair share of say, this would seem like a screw over. But they still have their outweighed representation at Capitol Hill to act as a check on the popularity of any democratically elected president. The fair trade off is that minority party voters in California or Texas won't resent them come presidential election time when time and again their votes are made irrelevant because of electoral commission math and the overwhelming polarisation of their states vote base. Minority democrat voters in Texas and Republican voters in California can have votes that count towards president, while their state's majority still represent the state view on the hill.

In my opinion it strikes a pretty fair balance between states rights and democratic value.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

You are equating various laws with the representation that was required for forming the Union. Plenty of laws can be changed but the reason for why the Union exists shouldn't be subject to change.

States already have democracy since they can elect governors and have representatives within the government.

[antaeus]

You are equating various laws with the representation that was required for forming the Union. Plenty of laws can be changed but the reason for why the Union exists shouldn't be subject to change.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm showing that the various components of governance are designed to be modified, and for that matter I'd also say the motivations behind the ongoing governance of the union are different to the founding principles and that the reason for the union existing has long since evolved into something else (unless we're talking patriotic slogans). The fact that the ability to change the rules is built into the structure means the rest of our conversation is really just perspective and how much change we think should occur. I appreciate you feel that the present electoral college system is a fair balance and understand your reasoning.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Okay, but what I want to point out is that certain laws may well be subject to change. However changing the whole reason for confederation is kind of counter productive.