While I undoubtedly support the mission of the Interstate Compact to render the electoral college virtually meaningless, I suggest we not lose sight of a second option—enlarging the House of Representatives, which would make both it and the electoral college more representative.
For some context, consider from its outset that the House grew as the nation grew from 65 members in 1790, each member representing approximately 35,000 constituents, to 435 in 1913, the size we have today, because the 435 membership figure was capped in 1929 by the House. Consider as well that today the average House member represents approximately 770,000 constituents. Compared with 35,000 in 1790, I don’t imagine it far-fetched to expect that our Founders had intended the House of Representatives, the body closest to the people, to grow in size as the population grew. I further would note that a mere vote of Congress is all that’s required to add more seats, which, as earlier stated, would make both the House and the electoral college more representative.
Though I can’t be certain, I believe that adding seats to the House is an easier lift than mobilizing the requisite number of states to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold. Hence, I hope Professor Reich, in subsequent newsletters, addresses efforts currently underway to enlarge the House.
IMHO a few relocations by Democrats into cowboy red states could change the equation in the electoral college, and once enacted, the electoral college could be reformed. 4 million PR SSI recipients living on the mainland tactically apportioned in the red states could make PR statehood a reality.
Many authoritarian leaning right-wingers have moved from California to Idaho in order to turn that state bright red & practically fascist in certain ways. If enough environment-loving progressives moved from California to a few of those lightly populated mountain states with a lot of forests & wildlife whose residents don't sufficiently appreciate & instead approve heavy mining & logging as well as trapping & hunting of rare animals, then maybe we could outvote them.
Daniel Solomon ; Many PR citizens have moved here after stronger hurricanes have made it necessary. There are friends and family members opening their homes to them. If votes are finally weighted fairly, there would be less need to "tactically apportion" them. Gerrymandering needs to end, too.
I do believe a great deal of DeStupid's win was gained by gerrymandering a district in the NW portion of the state.I heard he was told by fellow legislators NOT to do that,but he did anyway.The question is WHY did he get away with it? This character is super dictatorial and power greedy, a DANGEROUS combo.
RedElisa Mendoza; It has blown my mind that he is actually a governor of a state that IS red, but is so extreme that even right wingers can't be for his agenda. We all remember the Broward County vote counting stoppage, and the candidate's brother as governor with a secretary of state who was complicit in the stolen election for 'G W' Bush.
Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States and Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens; however, Puerto Rico is not a U.S. state, but a U.S. insular area. Consequently, while all Puerto Rico residents pay federal taxes, many residents are not required to pay federal income taxes.
Yay, Daniel! DC population is already larger than two of the 50 States. PR is mostly acted against I believe, because of the language, which is a really crappy excuse.
Daniel, Admittedly, I’ve never banked on tactical resettling. That said, concerning D.C. and PR statehood, while we only need a simple majority vote in the House and Senate to advance the legislation to the President, the Senate filibuster would require 60 votes to invoke cloture to move the legislation to the floor for debate and an up or down majority vote. Presently, we neither hold the majority in the House nor do we have enough Senators to modify the filibuster.
Jaimie, If in 24, we can hold our 51 Senate seats, add 1 more, re-take the House, and hold the Presidency, we would be presented with an entirely transformed reality. While, admittedly, I’ve listed several ifs, because the margins are small, the wins are entirely plausible, despite the Dems facing a tough Senate map in 24.
We can do this,I'm hoping and praying a great many folks saw and heard about the State of the Union speech,the President was superb.Not too many 80 yr. olds talk non stop and with SO MANY valuable things to say.Hopefully it did some necessary swaying to OUR SIDE. His accomplishments speak for themselves,they're GREAT!!!
RedElisa, While I agree that Biden delivered a mighty impressive Address, the job, now, in my view, is implementing the legislation that passed in his first two years, insuring that as broad a range of people as possible feel its effects. Additionally, he and the Democratically controlled Senate must persistently press for the legislation in 21 and 22 that remains stalled in Senate.
Yes, many more Democratic than Republican seats are up for grabs, but there is some promise that the electorate will be more pro-Democrat by then. Hope so!
Possibly Montana, too. It is very lightly populated, holds a place in the hearts of many environmentalists, & was somewhat competitive not so long ago.
States with largest black pop. (by percentage): Louisiana - 33.24%, Georgia - 31.76%, Maryland - 30.76%, South Carolina - 27.02%, Alabama - 26.47%. We have to remember a previous discussion that brought attention to those who do not participate in the process. I argue this is because Biden's accomplishments haven't addressed their basic needs of food, shelter, security... (see Maslow's Hiarchy of Needs). Many (probably most) are not middle class (didn't benefit from programs that created the middle class following Great Depression/WWII) so they are also overlooked when campaigns focus on the Middle Class and overlook the poor in both rhetoric (who they talk about) and deed (who the policies benefit most). Gerrymandering disenfranchises their votes in partisan districts and local elections, but has less impact on statewide elections- President, V.P., Senator, Govenor, Lt. Govenor... This is where their votes can make a difference, if they were courted and represented by someone that proposed/passed policy that directly impacted them and addressed some basic needs. There also has to be an education piece that shows them how other policies can benefit them indirectly and lead to more direct impacts. They want someone to 'fight' for them, also.
Daniel, While I don’t sense you necessarily are proposing a 50-state strategy, I do appreciate you seeking out states Dems can and should contest. Additionally, I thank you for including the link that, while focused on Georgia, also intimates opportunities in other parts of the South.
I agree that this is a preferable solution & probably easier to accomplish.
It may seem unwieldy to have so many legislators, but the small state of New Hampshire has a surprisingly high number of members in their legislature. Each member represents just a few thousand residents, maybe closer to 1-2000 residents each. Other nations have much larger legislative bodies than we do.
Jaime, While your point is well-taken, one might argue it’s even more “unwieldy” for 1 House member to represent the needs and interests of 770,000 constituents.
Excellent idea. I remember seeing an editorial (I thought in the Boston Globe but I couldn’t find it) proposing to expand the house to 1000 members. Wouldn’t that be something!? I live in California and a popular complaint is that folks in Wyoming have more representation than we do. Let’s fix that. And make DC and PR states.
Kate, While I propose enlarging the House, I imagine 1000 members would be unwieldy. Proposals I’ve reviewed typically call for adding 100 or so seats to at least reduce the representative/constituent ratio.
As for Wyoming and California, while folks in Wyoming have substantially more representation in the Senate, Wyoming has only 1 representative in the House while California has 50.
Kate, Beyond the 100 current proposals largely are calling for, I have no information related to adding more seats down the road. The point, as I understand it, is to make both the U.S. House and the Electoral College more representative.
I like your idea! But isn't the Senate involved in the House expansion, because the 1929 law setting the House at 435 members has to be repealed? The small states, which control the Senate, will oppose , since they lose power in the change.
Tim, Because the law is not a constitutional provision, but a federal law instated by the House, my understanding is that it could be repealed or amended by the House.
Fay, Upon further deliberation, I believe you and Tim are right. Signed into law by President Hoover, amending or repealing the 1929 federal law to cap House membership at 435 would require a majority vote by both chambers. Because the Senate unlikely would get the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, we would need 50 Senators (VP Harris breaking the tie) to modify the filibuster to move the legislation to the floor for debate and an up or down majority vote.
It depends, in the last election, we achieved a 51/49 majority until Sinema decided to betray her electors and declared herself an Independent. If we were to cap the house at 500 we might get a few Republicans to come on board as both Florida and Texas might pick up some seats.
Fay, Because Sinema caucuses with the Democrats, technically, we continue to maintain the 51/49 majority. I understand Sinema changed her party affiliation because if she decides to run for re-election in 24 she would lose a Democratic primary.
As for enlarging the House, proponents, overall, are calling for adding 100 seats, the point being to make both the House and the Electoral College more representative. The project is not partisan; both parties will pick up seats.
Tim, Thanks so much for attaching the link, which, as you state, is a useful source. Additionally, please review my edited response to Fay, who is part of this thread, wherein I explain why I believe you’re both right in asserting that amending or repealing the 1929 law would require majority support from both chambers.
I’ll second this suggestion. One proposal that has been put forward in the past is the so-called cube-root rule, where the total membership of Congress, including both House and Senate, would be the cube root of the US population in the most recent census. That would currently make it 694. That would mean a 594-seat House, until such time as we add a state or two, at which time the House would be reduced by the number of new senators.
As the Electoral College would still be allocated the same way, the increase in House seats would greatly reduce the distorting effect of giving each State two votes for its senators regardless of its size.
I’d go farther and suggest that Congress abolish the notion of single member districts. Indeed, smaller states could eliminate districts entirely. This wouldn’t have an impact on the Electoral College vote, but it would ensure that the House’s membership reflected the whole population, and not just those favored by structural shenanigans. Unfortunately, it’s probably as far fetched as abolishing the Electoral College because it would open the door to third parties and independent candidates.
You're probably right about it being far fetched, but I love the idea. The only reason it would be seen as far fetched is too many legislators would have no idea what a cube root of anything means, and they'd be sure it was a power grab by Democrats. The only allowable power grabs in their lexicon are gerrymandering to assure white only and conservative only districts. LOL
David, I’m intrigued by the “cube-root rule” and plan to follow up. I deeply appreciate you mentioning it. As for abolishing single member districts, if it doesn’t entail overriding a constitutional provision, it might not be as far-fetched as abolishing the Electoral College.
There is nothing in the Constitution requiring districts. Individual districts were created by the Apportionment Act of 1842 (if I recall correctly) and have been with us ever since. Congress could give states the option of dispensing with them (I.e., make them non mandatory) at any time.
I like the cube root idea, but I think most people will want their own personal representative. And imagine Californians voting for 50 representatives every 2 years!
Individual member districts were created by an act of Congress, not by the Constitution. I said smaller states could hold at-large elections. Larger states could go with individual or, preferably, multi member districts.
As for individuals wanting their own personal representative, under our present system of gerrymandered districts a significant number of us effectively have no representative.
Sorry to disappoint Jaime, but we've been there and done that for years. Up until the 2022 election we had 53 Congress persons in the House of Representatives, plus 2 Senators. And yes we voted for those 53 Representatives every 2 years. My personal choice would be to lengthen the term of office for Congress to four years, then we might get 3 1/3 years of legislation out of them instead of 9 months at best.
But you as a voter don't have all 50+ congressmen & women on the ballot to vote for, which sounded to me like what would happen under David Browne's proposal.
I agree we could enlarge the House of Representatives somewhat, I don't know how 435 was decided, but we also need to control the size so it doesn't become completely unmanageable. Maybe increase to 500, another 65 shouldn't be too unruly.
Fay, Since 1790, the U.S. House increasingly has added seats as the nation grew. By 1913, that number had reached 435. Then, in 1929, the House passed a law capping the number at 435. Because today House members, on average, represent 770,000 constituents, proponents have justified adding seats to the House to restore it to its original intent of being the body closest to the people. Proposals I’ve reviewed advocate adding 100 or so new seats to reduce the representative/constituent ratio while avoiding an unwieldy figure. Additionally, we ought not forget that enlarging the House make both it and the Electoral College more representative.
Right more criminals is always the answer just like the Supreme Court of criminals! More is not the answer! None is a good start. We don't need politicians who are nothing more than parasites!
in theory sounds good, except for example, 330,000,000 divided by 100,00, to choose a large random number would equal 3300 house members. how would that work? how many would be workable? 1,000?
Paul, Though proposals vary, my understanding is that advocates, overall, are calling to add 100 seats, thus creating a more workable representative/ constituent ratio.
I live in Maine, where our electors are portioned according to the states popular vote. For many years I have struggled to understand why all other states (except Nebraska) have a winner takes all stance for their electors. It seems undemocratic for candidates who win 51% of the popular vote, to get 100% of the electoral votes. That said, the electoral college also skews the popular vote because the number of senators plus representatives gives small population states more representation. A senator from Maine represents half the population of Maine, about 640,000 people. In California, half the population is close to 20 million.
This move to consolidate the electoral votes behind the popular vote is a good first step, but our elections are far from democratic.
As my 'ol pappy used to say, cows and trees outvote people in this country. Look at Wyoming. More people in DC where they have taxation without a Sioux of representation than in states that by rights should be owned mostly by dispossessed Native Americans. .
Bob, I live in one of those Red states. Our state would never vote for it, neither will other Red states. So what you will end up with is a pact of Blue states, agreeing to give their electoral votes to the person who wins the national majority vote--who likely will be a Democrat. Their electoral votes would go to the Democrat anyway. So the pact has affectively created no change. Worse yet, the pact will solidify the divisiveness of those in the pack and those who aren't. So why vote?
Don't despair if I shoot this idea down. Let's look at another solution. There are two states now that do not use winner-take-all. They select their electors based on the percentage of vote. What if every state had to report their electoral college votes based on the percentage of votes -- that is, what percentage voted for the Democrat candidate and what percentage voted for the Republican. if we do that, the electoral votes will reflect the popular vote. That way, we have affectively made the electoral college a reflection of the popular vote.
That's the only hope I can see. But I'm just dog-paddling in the Red sea.
I like your idea, Eleanor, but I don’t see the red state politicians going for that either. I live in a red state also, and these politicians will do everything they can to get their way. They constantly attack our citizens initiative process which is difficult enough already. And when Medicaid expansion was passed through the citizen’s initiative, they refused to fund it. They want authoritarianism.
“What if every state had to report their electoral college votes based on the percentage of votes”
In other words, you’re advocating that electors be allocated based on the popular vote. Which makes the electoral college irrelevant since all it would be is a re-statement of the popular vote. So really what you’re arguing for, is an elimination of the electoral college.
Since it takes fewer voters to "win" an electoral vote in a small state, like Wyoming, than in a large state, like California, it would still be possible for an candidate to win the electoral college vote and still lose the popular vote, but it would be harder to accomplish. The electoral votes per state are not apportioned strictly by population, since the states get one electoral vote per Senator, and each state has two Senators no matter what their population size.
“... if we do that, the electoral votes will reflect the popular vote. That way, we have affectively made the electoral college a reflection of the popular vote.”
If the objective is to have it more closely reflect the popular vote then why are you wasting time trying to cram things into the existing electoral college process? Just get rid of it, and go with the popular vote! 
One simple reason. It takes a Constitutional amendment to get red of the Electoral College. You can change the winner-take-all way of reporting without a Constitutional amendment. There may be some good reasons for keeping the Electoral College as well. Most of them elude me but one would be it delays the actual certification of the vote, giving states a chance to verify the votes.
Are you seriously suggesting that, absent the Electoral College, states would start certifying results BEFORE they’ve actually verified those results. That makes no sense at all.
They would oppose it for their states but would like the blue state to do it. That way they'd get a portion of the blue state electoral vote that they don't get today while keeping all the red state electoral votes for the republicans.
That's why the Compact doesn't go into effect until states representing over 270 electoral votes sign on. So what you describe can't happen.
The Compact is better than nothing, but still is trying to play with the existing Electoral College to get it more like the popular vote when the answer is to just throw the Electoral process out. Go directly to the popular vote.
It is what wee use to elect Senators, Representatives, Governors, state legislators, mayors. EVERY elected office other than the President, which we should stop making an exception.
You are absolutely right and are saying what I think should happen. But as long as the republicans have to ability to block legislation (by votes or filibuster), it will never happen. This system gives them a lot of power.
Not quite. Why keep trying to force the existing elector system into something more in line with the popular vote instead of just going with the popular vote?
We should just eliminate the Electoral College entirely. Count up all the votes across the entire country, and whoever gets the most wins. 
Simple, straightforward, fair and the way elections for every other position in Congress, governors, etc. around the entire country are done.
To accomplish this Compact, or to get money out of politics, or break up the monopolies, or any other progressive purpose, it is probably necessary that the Democratic Party have working class content. This means another fundamental approach, equally hard to accomplish, would be to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, so that the tactics that allowed labor unions to organize in the first place can be used: sympathy strikes, community boycotts, political leadership of unions, and international solidarity. Just like with global warming, there are lots of wonderful approaches to democracy that are all blocked by the same billionaire cabal and their opportunist enablers. Throughout history, it is frustrating how close universal peace and welfare has been...just out of reach.
I Absolutely agree. This compact is the way we get back to a true democracy. I live in one of the states that is already a part of it. I’m not sure what I can do about other states.
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
General Bill by Gottlieb
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote: Provides for enactment of Agreement Among States to Elect President by National Popular Vote; provides method by which state may become member state; requires statewide popular election for President & Vice President of U.S.; establishes procedure for appointing presidential electors in member states; provides that agreement becomes effective upon occurrence of specified actions; provides for withdrawal of member state; requires notification of member states when agreement takes effect in nonmember state or when member state withdraws from agreement.
I'd like to see such a plan implemented, but I see one huge, glaring problem with this. What happens in a state that is in the pact, that votes majority Republican, when the popular vote goes to the Democratic candidate, has to send all electors to vote for the Democrat. There are probably few such states that would be in the pact, but if for example MI were in the pact and even the slimmest majority voted for Trump in 2024, for example, but Biden wins the popular vote nationwide (as is likely), there would be hoards of gun nuts descending on the state capitol and I can attest that the police would be on their side, since most of them are in the Trump/Q-anon cult. If this scenario played out in even one or two states, and those electoral votes were key to winning the election, there would be the most contested presidential election ever.
I would rather see electoral votes awarded proportionally, as is currently done in NE and ME. If all states did that, Democrats would easily win the presidency, since popular vote proportions would roughly equal electoral vote proportions. That way Democrats voting in TX, or Republicans in CA, would see their vote counting for the first time.
Im struggling to understand why this is more democratic. In Maine we apportion the college based on the winner of popular vote in each districts. I’ll have to do some math to compare the two systems. Maine also has ranked voting which most of us love!
The major issues with the district-based method are:
(1) It is vulnerable to gerrymandering.
(2) It's up to individual state legislatures to adopt, and the state legislature is almost always governed by the party that would benefit from that state having a winner-take-all rule.
It does successfully limit chaos! But unfortunately, the vulnerability to gerrymandering is a major problem, and the reason the district-based method is one of the few reforms I don't endorse in my book on the Electoral College.
The number of electoral votes assigned to each state is not fixed. Depends on the results of the last census. Could undo the compact if the states in the compact lose enough electoral votes to drop the total below 270.
Thanks Prof. Reich for bringing the Popular vote interstate compact forward again. It is clearly the best way at hand to correct an appalling situation. The "swing" states like mine become a political nightmare every 4 years and Republicans challenge every one of our votes unless we vote Republican. That is not democracy. I find it interesting that the votes in the "red" states are rarely challenged. Knowing that there have been MANY voting issues in say, Florida and Texas in the past, attention is always on us swingers while who knows what goes on in the counting process in FL and TX, and somehow, the worst of humanity often get elected in those states. We need a popular vote, so the campaign is national not just in certain states that end up vulnerable to having our votes challenged and tons of money poured into recounts and other nonsense. All the states need to get on board with this sensible money-saving, highly democratic action.
I think they're mostly, if not all, blue states. I'm afraid, with the states that have signed up for this compact, unless I misunderstand how it works, electoral votes will switch to the popular vote winner only if a Democrat wins the electoral but not popular vote, but not the other way around, since it's mainly or only blue states that have agreed to delegate their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.
Thanks! All of these states are fairly solidly blue. The closest state to being a swing state is New Mexico, but it's voted blue recently. Michigan & Minnesota are closer to being swing states, but they still lean blue. It will not work in our favor if no red states join.
Agree, How about these? PA (20), AZ (11), GA (16), VA (13) -- 60 votes. 1 state at a time. Deep red states will never join, and they don't need to. The EC is their tool. I don't care if WY never votes blue-anything (sorry, Wyomingites).
Btw, Common Cause regularly sends out petitions promoting the Compact.
PS. Fyi I looked at PA's presidential vote history. It had 38 E Votes in the 1920's and has only voted for the loser 4X since then (Dewey, Humphrey, Gore, Kerry), so not "true blue?"
Sounds like a good idea that also sounds fragile. A state legislature gone hostile could outlaw participating in such a pact., and then you're back to square one. Just sayin'.
I was seeing “sunshine “after reading Robert this morning. Then I was feeling more and more excited by reading all those whose knowledge is far wider than mine.
Then I see the video of how false film reporting: see DZK’s web notes!
Oh boy, I know that one must stay strong and stand tall. What a huge fissure.
I hear ya'! Now consider this. I've had a computer and have been abreast of home PC technology since the old T-1000 and the RS COCO. I started sounding an alert for that kind of thing since the early '90, when the very first consumer-based static image editing software hit the market. I could clearly see >that< goin' nowhere good - ultimately! I was thinking more of the type of thing common on "scandal rags," where someone's face could be seamlessly cut & pasted on a photo of someone else in a compromising situation - not clearly cut & paste jobs. Guess who got accused of being a conspiracy theorist! Arguably, 20 years ahead of the trend, but I wasn't a'talkin' conspiracies. I was talking about the other edge of the double-bladed sword we see in its full glory in the deep fake link. We have indeed arrived at "ultimately!"
DZK, you are right that this could be fragile, and with the huge corporate lobbying that has been permitted over the years, things could swing temporarily in either direction. One way to deal with that would be to make it part of the state's constitution, particularly in the states where the people want it but only a small majority of state reps want it.
“In 2020, Biden owed his Electoral College victory to just 43,809 votes spread over Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. In 2016, Trump owed his Electoral College victory to 77,744 votes spread across Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.”
It’s actually HALF those numbers: had only one-half of the number of votes separating the two candidates in each state — plus one — gone the other way, the losing candidate would have won.
And Dr Reich’s argument applies, in part to the Senate: as we all know the Constitution mandates that only two Senate seats are allotted to each state. In the last Congress, the Senate was divided 50-50, YET, largely because Democratic voters are a majority in most of the largest states, Democratic Senate candidates drew over FORTY-MILLION more votes than Republicans; were there proportional representation in the Senate as is the House, Democrats would have a permanent iron grip on the upper chamber.
As I said, the Constitution specifies only two Senate seats per state, BUT I think that there may be something in the document — hiding in plain sight — that supersedes that, along with the Gerrymandering that gives Republicans an edge in the House despite their voters’ markedly inferior numbers…
When I was a young voter I thought the President was elected by popular vote. Then came all the noise on the electoral issues - a wake-up call. In fact Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency as she won the popular vote…wonder how different America’s politics would have been then? Clearly the electoral count has made electing the President more crooked. Here’s the thing, too, if we had the popular vote then gerrymandering (which is a serious problem getting worse) would be out of the game, wouldn’t it? We’ve got to solve the electoral issue and stop the gerrymandering!
My state in your red map, Colorado, passed the National Popular vote act a few years ago. Both houses are blue, as is the governor. But I live in a “red” county that last year elected its first Democratic rep in decades ( a former Republican). It is the wealthiest county in Colorado, has a right wing board of commissioners, and a board of education just overthrown by right wing nut jobs currently fighting a legal ethics battle. Also with the poorest paid teacher s in the state.
Vote Blue. Vote for the Popular vote act. Your children’s lives depend on it.
While I undoubtedly support the mission of the Interstate Compact to render the electoral college virtually meaningless, I suggest we not lose sight of a second option—enlarging the House of Representatives, which would make both it and the electoral college more representative.
For some context, consider from its outset that the House grew as the nation grew from 65 members in 1790, each member representing approximately 35,000 constituents, to 435 in 1913, the size we have today, because the 435 membership figure was capped in 1929 by the House. Consider as well that today the average House member represents approximately 770,000 constituents. Compared with 35,000 in 1790, I don’t imagine it far-fetched to expect that our Founders had intended the House of Representatives, the body closest to the people, to grow in size as the population grew. I further would note that a mere vote of Congress is all that’s required to add more seats, which, as earlier stated, would make both the House and the electoral college more representative.
Though I can’t be certain, I believe that adding seats to the House is an easier lift than mobilizing the requisite number of states to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold. Hence, I hope Professor Reich, in subsequent newsletters, addresses efforts currently underway to enlarge the House.
Easier yet. DC,PR. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/51
IMHO a few relocations by Democrats into cowboy red states could change the equation in the electoral college, and once enacted, the electoral college could be reformed. 4 million PR SSI recipients living on the mainland tactically apportioned in the red states could make PR statehood a reality.
Many authoritarian leaning right-wingers have moved from California to Idaho in order to turn that state bright red & practically fascist in certain ways. If enough environment-loving progressives moved from California to a few of those lightly populated mountain states with a lot of forests & wildlife whose residents don't sufficiently appreciate & instead approve heavy mining & logging as well as trapping & hunting of rare animals, then maybe we could outvote them.
It's probably why Nevada hasn't swung too far to the right like its neighbors to the north & east.
Daniel Solomon ; Many PR citizens have moved here after stronger hurricanes have made it necessary. There are friends and family members opening their homes to them. If votes are finally weighted fairly, there would be less need to "tactically apportion" them. Gerrymandering needs to end, too.
I do believe a great deal of DeStupid's win was gained by gerrymandering a district in the NW portion of the state.I heard he was told by fellow legislators NOT to do that,but he did anyway.The question is WHY did he get away with it? This character is super dictatorial and power greedy, a DANGEROUS combo.
RedElisa Mendoza; It has blown my mind that he is actually a governor of a state that IS red, but is so extreme that even right wingers can't be for his agenda. We all remember the Broward County vote counting stoppage, and the candidate's brother as governor with a secretary of state who was complicit in the stolen election for 'G W' Bush.
Super Stupid, with all those fancy credentials, but no integrity.
It's the fact that SSI is not available in Puerto Rico.
They are citizens of the US but only have the rights of citizens on the mainland.
Daniel Solomon, Are they taxed accordingly, since they do not receive SSI? Once they live here in the states, that would change, wouldn't it?
Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States and Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens; however, Puerto Rico is not a U.S. state, but a U.S. insular area. Consequently, while all Puerto Rico residents pay federal taxes, many residents are not required to pay federal income taxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Puerto_Rico#:~:text=Puerto%20Rico%20is%20an%20unincorporated,to%20pay%20federal%20income%20taxes.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/21/1094119474/supreme-court-allows-exclusion-of-puerto-rican-residents-from-disability-benefit
Yay, Daniel! DC population is already larger than two of the 50 States. PR is mostly acted against I believe, because of the language, which is a really crappy excuse.
Daniel, Admittedly, I’ve never banked on tactical resettling. That said, concerning D.C. and PR statehood, while we only need a simple majority vote in the House and Senate to advance the legislation to the President, the Senate filibuster would require 60 votes to invoke cloture to move the legislation to the floor for debate and an up or down majority vote. Presently, we neither hold the majority in the House nor do we have enough Senators to modify the filibuster.
Not the right senators, anyway. Manchin & Sinema are preventing it.
Jaimie, If in 24, we can hold our 51 Senate seats, add 1 more, re-take the House, and hold the Presidency, we would be presented with an entirely transformed reality. While, admittedly, I’ve listed several ifs, because the margins are small, the wins are entirely plausible, despite the Dems facing a tough Senate map in 24.
We can do this,I'm hoping and praying a great many folks saw and heard about the State of the Union speech,the President was superb.Not too many 80 yr. olds talk non stop and with SO MANY valuable things to say.Hopefully it did some necessary swaying to OUR SIDE. His accomplishments speak for themselves,they're GREAT!!!
RedElisa, While I agree that Biden delivered a mighty impressive Address, the job, now, in my view, is implementing the legislation that passed in his first two years, insuring that as broad a range of people as possible feel its effects. Additionally, he and the Democratically controlled Senate must persistently press for the legislation in 21 and 22 that remains stalled in Senate.
Yes, many more Democratic than Republican seats are up for grabs, but there is some promise that the electorate will be more pro-Democrat by then. Hope so!
Jaime, The principal challenge rests with the fact that Democratic Senators up for re-election largely represent red states.
Wyoming, 2 Dakotas, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska and maybe some southern states could be turned.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/05/great-migration-black-voters-georgia-politics/10605756002/
Possibly Montana, too. It is very lightly populated, holds a place in the hearts of many environmentalists, & was somewhat competitive not so long ago.
States with largest black pop. (by percentage): Louisiana - 33.24%, Georgia - 31.76%, Maryland - 30.76%, South Carolina - 27.02%, Alabama - 26.47%. We have to remember a previous discussion that brought attention to those who do not participate in the process. I argue this is because Biden's accomplishments haven't addressed their basic needs of food, shelter, security... (see Maslow's Hiarchy of Needs). Many (probably most) are not middle class (didn't benefit from programs that created the middle class following Great Depression/WWII) so they are also overlooked when campaigns focus on the Middle Class and overlook the poor in both rhetoric (who they talk about) and deed (who the policies benefit most). Gerrymandering disenfranchises their votes in partisan districts and local elections, but has less impact on statewide elections- President, V.P., Senator, Govenor, Lt. Govenor... This is where their votes can make a difference, if they were courted and represented by someone that proposed/passed policy that directly impacted them and addressed some basic needs. There also has to be an education piece that shows them how other policies can benefit them indirectly and lead to more direct impacts. They want someone to 'fight' for them, also.
Daniel, While I don’t sense you necessarily are proposing a 50-state strategy, I do appreciate you seeking out states Dems can and should contest. Additionally, I thank you for including the link that, while focused on Georgia, also intimates opportunities in other parts of the South.
I believe this will happen
They need to be kicked down the road.
Manchin & Sinema.
I agree that this is a preferable solution & probably easier to accomplish.
It may seem unwieldy to have so many legislators, but the small state of New Hampshire has a surprisingly high number of members in their legislature. Each member represents just a few thousand residents, maybe closer to 1-2000 residents each. Other nations have much larger legislative bodies than we do.
Jaime, While your point is well-taken, one might argue it’s even more “unwieldy” for 1 House member to represent the needs and interests of 770,000 constituents.
That's a good point.
Excellent idea. I remember seeing an editorial (I thought in the Boston Globe but I couldn’t find it) proposing to expand the house to 1000 members. Wouldn’t that be something!? I live in California and a popular complaint is that folks in Wyoming have more representation than we do. Let’s fix that. And make DC and PR states.
Kate, While I propose enlarging the House, I imagine 1000 members would be unwieldy. Proposals I’ve reviewed typically call for adding 100 or so seats to at least reduce the representative/constituent ratio.
As for Wyoming and California, while folks in Wyoming have substantially more representation in the Senate, Wyoming has only 1 representative in the House while California has 50.
100 is a start!
Kate, Beyond the 100 current proposals largely are calling for, I have no information related to adding more seats down the road. The point, as I understand it, is to make both the U.S. House and the Electoral College more representative.
I like your idea! But isn't the Senate involved in the House expansion, because the 1929 law setting the House at 435 members has to be repealed? The small states, which control the Senate, will oppose , since they lose power in the change.
Tim, Because the law is not a constitutional provision, but a federal law instated by the House, my understanding is that it could be repealed or amended by the House.
Yes, but, I'm afraid Tim is right, it would have to pass the Senate before going to
Biden. DC is always held back solely on the grounds that the majority of voters are registered Democrats.
Fay, Upon further deliberation, I believe you and Tim are right. Signed into law by President Hoover, amending or repealing the 1929 federal law to cap House membership at 435 would require a majority vote by both chambers. Because the Senate unlikely would get the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, we would need 50 Senators (VP Harris breaking the tie) to modify the filibuster to move the legislation to the floor for debate and an up or down majority vote.
Fay, I write to let you know I revised my earlier reply to you.
It depends, in the last election, we achieved a 51/49 majority until Sinema decided to betray her electors and declared herself an Independent. If we were to cap the house at 500 we might get a few Republicans to come on board as both Florida and Texas might pick up some seats.
Fay, Because Sinema caucuses with the Democrats, technically, we continue to maintain the 51/49 majority. I understand Sinema changed her party affiliation because if she decides to run for re-election in 24 she would lose a Democratic primary.
As for enlarging the House, proponents, overall, are calling for adding 100 seats, the point being to make both the House and the Electoral College more representative. The project is not partisan; both parties will pick up seats.
Thanks for straightening me out! https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-house-got-stuck-at-435-seats/ has good info. on this subject.
Tim, Thanks so much for attaching the link, which, as you state, is a useful source. Additionally, please review my edited response to Fay, who is part of this thread, wherein I explain why I believe you’re both right in asserting that amending or repealing the 1929 law would require majority support from both chambers.
Tim, I write to let you know I added text to this reply to amend an earlier response, wherein I believe you were correct and I was wrong.
Tim Baldwin ; They have had outsized power with the system we now have.
I’ll second this suggestion. One proposal that has been put forward in the past is the so-called cube-root rule, where the total membership of Congress, including both House and Senate, would be the cube root of the US population in the most recent census. That would currently make it 694. That would mean a 594-seat House, until such time as we add a state or two, at which time the House would be reduced by the number of new senators.
As the Electoral College would still be allocated the same way, the increase in House seats would greatly reduce the distorting effect of giving each State two votes for its senators regardless of its size.
I’d go farther and suggest that Congress abolish the notion of single member districts. Indeed, smaller states could eliminate districts entirely. This wouldn’t have an impact on the Electoral College vote, but it would ensure that the House’s membership reflected the whole population, and not just those favored by structural shenanigans. Unfortunately, it’s probably as far fetched as abolishing the Electoral College because it would open the door to third parties and independent candidates.
You're probably right about it being far fetched, but I love the idea. The only reason it would be seen as far fetched is too many legislators would have no idea what a cube root of anything means, and they'd be sure it was a power grab by Democrats. The only allowable power grabs in their lexicon are gerrymandering to assure white only and conservative only districts. LOL
David, I’m intrigued by the “cube-root rule” and plan to follow up. I deeply appreciate you mentioning it. As for abolishing single member districts, if it doesn’t entail overriding a constitutional provision, it might not be as far-fetched as abolishing the Electoral College.
There is nothing in the Constitution requiring districts. Individual districts were created by the Apportionment Act of 1842 (if I recall correctly) and have been with us ever since. Congress could give states the option of dispensing with them (I.e., make them non mandatory) at any time.
David, Your reply, indeed, comports with my understanding.
I like the cube root idea, but I think most people will want their own personal representative. And imagine Californians voting for 50 representatives every 2 years!
Individual member districts were created by an act of Congress, not by the Constitution. I said smaller states could hold at-large elections. Larger states could go with individual or, preferably, multi member districts.
As for individuals wanting their own personal representative, under our present system of gerrymandered districts a significant number of us effectively have no representative.
Sorry to disappoint Jaime, but we've been there and done that for years. Up until the 2022 election we had 53 Congress persons in the House of Representatives, plus 2 Senators. And yes we voted for those 53 Representatives every 2 years. My personal choice would be to lengthen the term of office for Congress to four years, then we might get 3 1/3 years of legislation out of them instead of 9 months at best.
But you as a voter don't have all 50+ congressmen & women on the ballot to vote for, which sounded to me like what would happen under David Browne's proposal.
I agree we could enlarge the House of Representatives somewhat, I don't know how 435 was decided, but we also need to control the size so it doesn't become completely unmanageable. Maybe increase to 500, another 65 shouldn't be too unruly.
Fay, Since 1790, the U.S. House increasingly has added seats as the nation grew. By 1913, that number had reached 435. Then, in 1929, the House passed a law capping the number at 435. Because today House members, on average, represent 770,000 constituents, proponents have justified adding seats to the House to restore it to its original intent of being the body closest to the people. Proposals I’ve reviewed advocate adding 100 or so new seats to reduce the representative/constituent ratio while avoiding an unwieldy figure. Additionally, we ought not forget that enlarging the House make both it and the Electoral College more representative.
Right more criminals is always the answer just like the Supreme Court of criminals! More is not the answer! None is a good start. We don't need politicians who are nothing more than parasites!
in theory sounds good, except for example, 330,000,000 divided by 100,00, to choose a large random number would equal 3300 house members. how would that work? how many would be workable? 1,000?
Paul, Though proposals vary, my understanding is that advocates, overall, are calling to add 100 seats, thus creating a more workable representative/ constituent ratio.
I live in Maine, where our electors are portioned according to the states popular vote. For many years I have struggled to understand why all other states (except Nebraska) have a winner takes all stance for their electors. It seems undemocratic for candidates who win 51% of the popular vote, to get 100% of the electoral votes. That said, the electoral college also skews the popular vote because the number of senators plus representatives gives small population states more representation. A senator from Maine represents half the population of Maine, about 640,000 people. In California, half the population is close to 20 million.
This move to consolidate the electoral votes behind the popular vote is a good first step, but our elections are far from democratic.
As my 'ol pappy used to say, cows and trees outvote people in this country. Look at Wyoming. More people in DC where they have taxation without a Sioux of representation than in states that by rights should be owned mostly by dispossessed Native Americans. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sioux_Nation_of_Indians
Bob, I live in one of those Red states. Our state would never vote for it, neither will other Red states. So what you will end up with is a pact of Blue states, agreeing to give their electoral votes to the person who wins the national majority vote--who likely will be a Democrat. Their electoral votes would go to the Democrat anyway. So the pact has affectively created no change. Worse yet, the pact will solidify the divisiveness of those in the pack and those who aren't. So why vote?
Don't despair if I shoot this idea down. Let's look at another solution. There are two states now that do not use winner-take-all. They select their electors based on the percentage of vote. What if every state had to report their electoral college votes based on the percentage of votes -- that is, what percentage voted for the Democrat candidate and what percentage voted for the Republican. if we do that, the electoral votes will reflect the popular vote. That way, we have affectively made the electoral college a reflection of the popular vote.
That's the only hope I can see. But I'm just dog-paddling in the Red sea.
I like your idea, Eleanor, but I don’t see the red state politicians going for that either. I live in a red state also, and these politicians will do everything they can to get their way. They constantly attack our citizens initiative process which is difficult enough already. And when Medicaid expansion was passed through the citizen’s initiative, they refused to fund it. They want authoritarianism.
Nothing terrifies Republican more than citizens being able to actually vote on things.
“What if every state had to report their electoral college votes based on the percentage of votes”
In other words, you’re advocating that electors be allocated based on the popular vote. Which makes the electoral college irrelevant since all it would be is a re-statement of the popular vote. So really what you’re arguing for, is an elimination of the electoral college.
Since it takes fewer voters to "win" an electoral vote in a small state, like Wyoming, than in a large state, like California, it would still be possible for an candidate to win the electoral college vote and still lose the popular vote, but it would be harder to accomplish. The electoral votes per state are not apportioned strictly by population, since the states get one electoral vote per Senator, and each state has two Senators no matter what their population size.
“... if we do that, the electoral votes will reflect the popular vote. That way, we have affectively made the electoral college a reflection of the popular vote.”
If the objective is to have it more closely reflect the popular vote then why are you wasting time trying to cram things into the existing electoral college process? Just get rid of it, and go with the popular vote! 
One simple reason. It takes a Constitutional amendment to get red of the Electoral College. You can change the winner-take-all way of reporting without a Constitutional amendment. There may be some good reasons for keeping the Electoral College as well. Most of them elude me but one would be it delays the actual certification of the vote, giving states a chance to verify the votes.
Are you seriously suggesting that, absent the Electoral College, states would start certifying results BEFORE they’ve actually verified those results. That makes no sense at all.
Be careful with this idea. Red states will oppose it and if blue states implement it, it would guarantee republican victories.
Huh? “Red” states would oppose it when it would guarantee Republican victories?
I grant you Republicans these days are mostly stupid and love to work against their own interests, but that he seems extreme even for today’s GOP.
They would oppose it for their states but would like the blue state to do it. That way they'd get a portion of the blue state electoral vote that they don't get today while keeping all the red state electoral votes for the republicans.
Ah. Thanks for clarifying.
That's why the Compact doesn't go into effect until states representing over 270 electoral votes sign on. So what you describe can't happen.
The Compact is better than nothing, but still is trying to play with the existing Electoral College to get it more like the popular vote when the answer is to just throw the Electoral process out. Go directly to the popular vote.
It is what wee use to elect Senators, Representatives, Governors, state legislators, mayors. EVERY elected office other than the President, which we should stop making an exception.
You are absolutely right and are saying what I think should happen. But as long as the republicans have to ability to block legislation (by votes or filibuster), it will never happen. This system gives them a lot of power.
With a switch in their legislatures or Governor couldn’t Nebraska and Maine also just go back to 100% winner take all? 
I don’t see how that makes it any better than the other situation where folks sign onto the Compact. 
Not quite. Why keep trying to force the existing elector system into something more in line with the popular vote instead of just going with the popular vote?
We should just eliminate the Electoral College entirely. Count up all the votes across the entire country, and whoever gets the most wins. 
Simple, straightforward, fair and the way elections for every other position in Congress, governors, etc. around the entire country are done.
To accomplish this Compact, or to get money out of politics, or break up the monopolies, or any other progressive purpose, it is probably necessary that the Democratic Party have working class content. This means another fundamental approach, equally hard to accomplish, would be to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, so that the tactics that allowed labor unions to organize in the first place can be used: sympathy strikes, community boycotts, political leadership of unions, and international solidarity. Just like with global warming, there are lots of wonderful approaches to democracy that are all blocked by the same billionaire cabal and their opportunist enablers. Throughout history, it is frustrating how close universal peace and welfare has been...just out of reach.
I Absolutely agree. This compact is the way we get back to a true democracy. I live in one of the states that is already a part of it. I’m not sure what I can do about other states.
Florida. HB 53 -
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
General Bill by Gottlieb
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote: Provides for enactment of Agreement Among States to Elect President by National Popular Vote; provides method by which state may become member state; requires statewide popular election for President & Vice President of U.S.; establishes procedure for appointing presidential electors in member states; provides that agreement becomes effective upon occurrence of specified actions; provides for withdrawal of member state; requires notification of member states when agreement takes effect in nonmember state or when member state withdraws from agreement.
Effective Date: July 1, 2023
https://www.floridiansfornpv.com/
I'd like to see such a plan implemented, but I see one huge, glaring problem with this. What happens in a state that is in the pact, that votes majority Republican, when the popular vote goes to the Democratic candidate, has to send all electors to vote for the Democrat. There are probably few such states that would be in the pact, but if for example MI were in the pact and even the slimmest majority voted for Trump in 2024, for example, but Biden wins the popular vote nationwide (as is likely), there would be hoards of gun nuts descending on the state capitol and I can attest that the police would be on their side, since most of them are in the Trump/Q-anon cult. If this scenario played out in even one or two states, and those electoral votes were key to winning the election, there would be the most contested presidential election ever.
I would rather see electoral votes awarded proportionally, as is currently done in NE and ME. If all states did that, Democrats would easily win the presidency, since popular vote proportions would roughly equal electoral vote proportions. That way Democrats voting in TX, or Republicans in CA, would see their vote counting for the first time.
Im struggling to understand why this is more democratic. In Maine we apportion the college based on the winner of popular vote in each districts. I’ll have to do some math to compare the two systems. Maine also has ranked voting which most of us love!
The major issues with the district-based method are:
(1) It is vulnerable to gerrymandering.
(2) It's up to individual state legislatures to adopt, and the state legislature is almost always governed by the party that would benefit from that state having a winner-take-all rule.
It does successfully limit chaos! But unfortunately, the vulnerability to gerrymandering is a major problem, and the reason the district-based method is one of the few reforms I don't endorse in my book on the Electoral College.
The number of electoral votes assigned to each state is not fixed. Depends on the results of the last census. Could undo the compact if the states in the compact lose enough electoral votes to drop the total below 270.
Thanks Prof. Reich for bringing the Popular vote interstate compact forward again. It is clearly the best way at hand to correct an appalling situation. The "swing" states like mine become a political nightmare every 4 years and Republicans challenge every one of our votes unless we vote Republican. That is not democracy. I find it interesting that the votes in the "red" states are rarely challenged. Knowing that there have been MANY voting issues in say, Florida and Texas in the past, attention is always on us swingers while who knows what goes on in the counting process in FL and TX, and somehow, the worst of humanity often get elected in those states. We need a popular vote, so the campaign is national not just in certain states that end up vulnerable to having our votes challenged and tons of money poured into recounts and other nonsense. All the states need to get on board with this sensible money-saving, highly democratic action.
Very good points!
Can you provide a list of states that have joined?
I think they're mostly, if not all, blue states. I'm afraid, with the states that have signed up for this compact, unless I misunderstand how it works, electoral votes will switch to the popular vote winner only if a Democrat wins the electoral but not popular vote, but not the other way around, since it's mainly or only blue states that have agreed to delegate their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.
MD, NJ, IL, HA, WA, MA, DC, VT, CA, RI, NY, CT, CO, DE, NM, OR. 195 Elect. Votes, 270 needed.
Largest non-signers are TX (40 Votes) and FL (30 Votes).
Thanks! All of these states are fairly solidly blue. The closest state to being a swing state is New Mexico, but it's voted blue recently. Michigan & Minnesota are closer to being swing states, but they still lean blue. It will not work in our favor if no red states join.
Agree, How about these? PA (20), AZ (11), GA (16), VA (13) -- 60 votes. 1 state at a time. Deep red states will never join, and they don't need to. The EC is their tool. I don't care if WY never votes blue-anything (sorry, Wyomingites).
Btw, Common Cause regularly sends out petitions promoting the Compact.
PS. Fyi I looked at PA's presidential vote history. It had 38 E Votes in the 1920's and has only voted for the loser 4X since then (Dewey, Humphrey, Gore, Kerry), so not "true blue?"
We could probably get Pennsylvania, but not sure about the others. Wisconsin may be another possibility.
Sounds like a good idea that also sounds fragile. A state legislature gone hostile could outlaw participating in such a pact., and then you're back to square one. Just sayin'.
TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC, but >exactly< the way I see most news outlets: https://youtu.be/9U4Ha9HQvMo LOL!
On a more disturbing note: https://youtu.be/oxh7wLrbVdk
I was seeing “sunshine “after reading Robert this morning. Then I was feeling more and more excited by reading all those whose knowledge is far wider than mine.
Then I see the video of how false film reporting: see DZK’s web notes!
Oh boy, I know that one must stay strong and stand tall. What a huge fissure.
I hear ya'! Now consider this. I've had a computer and have been abreast of home PC technology since the old T-1000 and the RS COCO. I started sounding an alert for that kind of thing since the early '90, when the very first consumer-based static image editing software hit the market. I could clearly see >that< goin' nowhere good - ultimately! I was thinking more of the type of thing common on "scandal rags," where someone's face could be seamlessly cut & pasted on a photo of someone else in a compromising situation - not clearly cut & paste jobs. Guess who got accused of being a conspiracy theorist! Arguably, 20 years ahead of the trend, but I wasn't a'talkin' conspiracies. I was talking about the other edge of the double-bladed sword we see in its full glory in the deep fake link. We have indeed arrived at "ultimately!"
That first video: ROTFL all the way through!! (Second video: brought me right back down to earth with a thump.)
Did it work?
That's true. Just because a state voted for it, it can also vote itself out.
DZK, you are right that this could be fragile, and with the huge corporate lobbying that has been permitted over the years, things could swing temporarily in either direction. One way to deal with that would be to make it part of the state's constitution, particularly in the states where the people want it but only a small majority of state reps want it.
Good point.
“In 2020, Biden owed his Electoral College victory to just 43,809 votes spread over Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. In 2016, Trump owed his Electoral College victory to 77,744 votes spread across Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.”
It’s actually HALF those numbers: had only one-half of the number of votes separating the two candidates in each state — plus one — gone the other way, the losing candidate would have won.
And Dr Reich’s argument applies, in part to the Senate: as we all know the Constitution mandates that only two Senate seats are allotted to each state. In the last Congress, the Senate was divided 50-50, YET, largely because Democratic voters are a majority in most of the largest states, Democratic Senate candidates drew over FORTY-MILLION more votes than Republicans; were there proportional representation in the Senate as is the House, Democrats would have a permanent iron grip on the upper chamber.
As I said, the Constitution specifies only two Senate seats per state, BUT I think that there may be something in the document — hiding in plain sight — that supersedes that, along with the Gerrymandering that gives Republicans an edge in the House despite their voters’ markedly inferior numbers…
Make this into a petition or format so we can send it to our state reps
When I was a young voter I thought the President was elected by popular vote. Then came all the noise on the electoral issues - a wake-up call. In fact Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency as she won the popular vote…wonder how different America’s politics would have been then? Clearly the electoral count has made electing the President more crooked. Here’s the thing, too, if we had the popular vote then gerrymandering (which is a serious problem getting worse) would be out of the game, wouldn’t it? We’ve got to solve the electoral issue and stop the gerrymandering!
My state in your red map, Colorado, passed the National Popular vote act a few years ago. Both houses are blue, as is the governor. But I live in a “red” county that last year elected its first Democratic rep in decades ( a former Republican). It is the wealthiest county in Colorado, has a right wing board of commissioners, and a board of education just overthrown by right wing nut jobs currently fighting a legal ethics battle. Also with the poorest paid teacher s in the state.
Vote Blue. Vote for the Popular vote act. Your children’s lives depend on it.
Original Sin . . .
But Why the College in the first place . . .by Founding Minds considered First rate . .
Property owners frightened . .by The Unenlightened ..
and a Mad King! an Unjust tax! on their plate . . .#school board referral . ..