The Equal Protection argument against “winner take all” in the Electoral College

As I understand it, the cap on the number of representatives is a matter of law. It is not in the constitution. That is what gives California so few electoral votes, proportionately, and Wyoming so much power. The Constitution states 1 representative per 30,000 population. It does not limit the number of representatives that a state can have. California would have something like 1300 using those numbers. So, we’re already in violation of the constitution, right?

I agree that would be unmanageable, but it does seem to me that overturning the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and replacing it with something more equitable would go a long way to solving this problem. For instance, use the population of the smallest state as the divisor, rather than a fixed number. That would ensure a more equitable representation in the House and among Electors.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.