For example: Federal redistricting -> reapportionment. We're a completely different country than when "permanent apportionment" was established nearly 100 years ago. The numbers need to be reasonably weighted for population because "equal representation" is enshrined in our collective conscience.

[–] match@pawb.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I disagree. We should have a political group agitating for something twice as radical to make this look tame by comparison

[–] Botzo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Totally fair. I think instead of disagreeing, a "yes and" approach is necessary. My point here is that OP doesn't really seem to understand the existing mechanics behind especially redistricting, unless this is state specific.

Federal redistricting is controlled by each state independently, and federal election law regulating it will be thrown out by courts everywhere.

Apportionment (calculation of the number of seats allotted to each state) was set in stone by Congress almost 100 years ago, and now means Wyoming has a helluva lot more say per person than CA.

Unless the radical approach is to redraw state boundaries (or e.g. admit Puerto Rico as a state), there isn't a lot that's both functionally possible and more radical than changing the make up of Congress to make voting power per citizen more equal.