Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 2
I may be wrong, but the Constitution doesn't restrict how states choose electors. So I do not believe it would be unconstitutional to require them to assign them proportionally, reflecting the popular vote of any given state. In which case the feds could do that, and problem solved. Or at least THAT problem solved.** Would circumvent the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

However, it should be noted that AZ -except for Clinton once in the 90s- was been solid red since 1952. And we just turned blue this election. So it can happen, and ignoring "safe" states is a mistake.

1poorguy

**Another problem Bill Maher is fond of pointing out is that you have two "Dakotas", and combined they don't reach the population of L.A., yet they get four senators between them while CA gets two. Though that is as intended by the Founders, it seems more of a problem today because of the lopsided representation it provides when you have over 300M people, and states that only have <1M get more representation than states that have 40M. But only an Amendment could change that.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.