[CA Conservative]

The whole concept is to negate the massive advantage that large-high population states have in the electoral process.

It is true that the Electoral College was a compromise that was designed to give the smaller states more of a say in the election of the President than their population would justify. But the practical effect of that has changed over the years. In the election of 1800, the electoral votes of the smallest states (RI, OH) were each about 1/7th of the electoral votes of the largest state (VA). Now, the electoral votes of the smallest states (WY, AK, etc) are 1/20th of the electoral votes of the largest state.

As the size of Congress has grown, the additional influence given to smaller states by the two electoral votes for senators has diminished. If the sole purpose of the electoral college was to balance the influence of large states and small states, then the formula would need to be adjusted - perhaps by allocating 3 electors per senator rather than 1. That would increase the representation of the smallest states by 133%, but it would only increase the representation of the largest state by 7%.

[Sudetenland]

My reaction was admittedly knee-jerk, but I get nervous every time someone in government starts talking about messing with what has worked for 230 years. Just like I agree with Perry and would like to see the appointment of Senators by the state legislatures rather than by direct election.

Personally, I would like to see Congress grow. I'd like the House move closer to the original charge of 1 Representative/30,000 citizens. It would mean we would need a stadium, for the House to meet (LOL!), but it would reduce the power of each individual member and move closer to them being an accessible representative.

Representatives are becoming too much like a ruling class. Maybe just expand the membership from 435 (1/735,000) to 1305 (1/230,000) or even 1740 (1/172,000).

I guess I need to look at what has been proposed again and contemplate if further.