If institutional biases flip, does either party change their positions?

[ProgressiveModerate]

The electoral college for instance favoured Obama as recently as 2012. If Democrats get lucky with GA, NC, and AZ all voting to the left of the nation or smtg, it could create a real challenge for the GOP for a few cycles, especially given the number of safe EVs is much higher on the Dem side in a normal year.

Same thing goes for the House; a lot of the close House districts have generally been shifting left and every census pulls seats more into urban and suburban communities. The GOP gaining with urban minority in hyper-D districts and rural voters in hyper-R districts isn't exactly the best trade.

The Senate is harder to see the bias flip on its head, at least in teh short term, though it could certainly grow or shrink.

On the state legistlative level, a lot of the GOPs massive advantage has waned as gerrymanders in MI and PA were undone.

Another place where this could theoretically happen is the SCOTUS if the GOP has unfortunately timed deaths and if Dems more often than not hold the Presidency.

Like imagine if the GOP lost the EC while winning the PV. What would their message be? Would they start to argue for abolishing the EC while Dems want to keep it? Could it eventually force a bipartisan effort to reform malapportionment in institutions?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

With the Supreme Court, I remember a lot of Republicans were frustrated that the idea that Supreme Court had too much power during the Obama years when it felt like most big decisions were going towards progressive positions.

[Skill and Chance]

The Senate is effectively impossible to change because of the language in Article 5 requiring unanimous consent of the states and the likelihood that the party that benefits most from Senate apportionment by state will have a SCOTUS majority to enforce it aggressively.

SCOTUS is the second hardest because both sides know that if they go there (either by ignoring them outright or adding seats), then the law means whatever the incumbent president wants it to mean from that day forward (barring a supermajority against them in congress).  Most everyone recognizes that we wouldn't be a free country very long if that happens.   

Regarding the EC, it's plausible that a SCOTUS majority appointed by a party that lost multiple times in recent memory while winning the PV eventually finds WTA by state EV allocation unconstitutional.  Also, in the specific case where one party wins the EC while losing the PV and then 4 years later the opposite party wins the EC while losing the PV, I think it's reasonable a constitutional amendment would be passed.

Gerrymandering in the state legislatures is easy to change in some states and very hard to change in others depending on state institutions, namely whether that state has initiatives and/or elected state courts. 

Gerrymandering in the House is by far the easiest one to change because in theory all you need is a normal federal law spelling out a different process for drawing districts in every state or switching to PR or statewide WTA.  There's a constitutional argument that the House could even do this on its own without needing agreement from the Senate or President.

[morgieb]

I think enough Dems hate the EC that even if it advantaged them they’d be happy to go with a grand deal to abolish it if it came to it.

But in a PV/EC split that favours the Dems, I fear that the Republican solution will be to refuse to certify key states that they control on the state level…

[Unelectable Bystander]

I think enough Dems hate the EC that even if it advantaged them they’d be happy to go with a grand deal to abolish it if it came to it.

But in a PV/EC split that favours the Dems, I fear that the Republican solution will be to refuse to certify key states that they control on the state level…

I know that this isn’t a policy debate thread, but this makes me wonder. For those of you that believe in abolishing the EC, would you be open to any of the following:

1) making the EC less volatile by either awarding 2 EV’s per state and 1 EV per congressional district (perhaps in a post-gerrymandering situation), or awarding 2 per state and (N-2) * popular vote share in each state

2) using a pure popular vote system and adding 2 at-large confessional seats per state so the house and the presidency switch places but we maintain one system decided by the collective country, one decided by states, and one decided by a combination as is the case currently

Or do you fully reject the idea that states should have any power in electing officials?

[Skill and Chance]

I think enough Dems hate the EC that even if it advantaged them they’d be happy to go with a grand deal to abolish it if it came to it.

But in a PV/EC split that favours the Dems, I fear that the Republican solution will be to refuse to certify key states that they control on the state level…

And then SCOTUS compels them to certify by at least 7/2, so long as the state law set prior to the election provided for the electors to be chosen by popular vote.