Electoral College. Just why?

[peach174]

National Popular Vote does not give equal or fair votes to the States that have fewer populations.
The Larger Mob always wins and gives no representation to the minorities of the Nation.
This is exactly why our Founders set up our Government as a Republic where the mob does not control everyone.

Yes it does....1 person 1 vote. Why should it matter where the person lives when electing a national leader?

Why should people in smaller states have more representation for electing the president than people from large states?

It does not give them more representation.
It gives them a fairer representation over the majority and gives the few a voice.

What do you mean by fairer representation? Fair representation in my opinion is one vote for one person. When certain states get extra representation just for being small enough that's not fair, that's manipulation. Who said minorities are more important than majority of the US population?

California is the one that gets extra representation. They have the highest amount of electoral votes of any other State in the Union.

Actually, in proportion to their population, California is underrepresented. Right now, CA should have 56 EV, not 55.

Illegals are not counted as citizens.

 

[Nyvin]

Yes it does....1 person 1 vote. Why should it matter where the person lives when electing a national leader?

Why should people in smaller states have more representation for electing the president than people from large states?

Maybe because our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience of living with no representation, and thought it was a bad thing.

People in smaller states don't have "more representation". They just have a different sort from what suits your simplistic, juvenile worldview.

No, you're mathematically wrong. People who live in smaller population states have more electoral clout for the presidential election than people in large population states.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

informative but it leaves out the winner-take-all effect.....which gives way to much clout to California. texas and NewYork

They have the most people, they should have the biggest voices. As for the losers in those winner take all elections...you simply can never make everyone happy, they chose to be on team California or team Texas. Their tribe has spoken, and it didn't go their way, too bad better luck next time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's beyond me, other than maybe one side believing that it gives an advantage. In my opinion, it should be by popular vote. Also, it's believed that the higher the population of a state, the more votes that state deserves. It's almost like saying that the citizens in California deserve more say in government than those that live in North Dakota. Equal representation should mean exactly that, no exceptions. In my opinion, the whole political process is screwed up.

You want it because a fucking liberal Santa Claus will win every election. Obama won under the Electoral System. The system works.

Well, sure. Do away with the Electoral College and you can just ignore those pesky rubes in flyover country and let the elites in NYC, LA, etc. run the country for the serfs, the way it should be.

Those people in flyover country dont get a say NOW.....its not like doing away with the electoral college the way it is now would make a difference.....it needs to be modified not eliminated.

Incorrect. Right now, Presidential candidates have to actually pay attention to and visit other states besides NY and CA. And WHY does it need to be modified? Because YOU don't like it and don't understand its purpose (or just don't agree with its purpose because it doesn't give you what you want)? As I said, we have this argument every time we have a Presidential election season, with a slew of leftist imbeciles thinking they're Mr. Clever and come up with something brand-new by parading their ignorance of basic Civics around. And I have yet to hear any reason for "It needs to go" other than "I don't like it. It isn't fair, Mommy! Waaaah!"

I'm really not interested in re-organizing the procedures of government based on a grade-school understanding of the subject, and life in general.

Well I dont agree with those that say it needs to go entirely......but the idea that it helps focus attention on the flyover staes is just bunk.....as its composed now.....The primary/caucus system occasionally brings attention..but not the general elction

any cure is bound to have unintended consequences, unintended consequences that would probably create more problems.

Most political scientists like the George in the OP have told us Term Limits and Ballot initiatives would be the next best thing since sliced bread -- look at the state of California.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes it does....1 person 1 vote. Why should it matter where the person lives when electing a national leader?

Why should people in smaller states have more representation for electing the president than people from large states?

It does not give them more representation.
It gives them a fairer representation over the majority and gives the few a voice.

What do you mean by fairer representation? Fair representation in my opinion is one vote for one person. When certain states get extra representation just for being small enough that's not fair, that's manipulation. Who said minorities are more important than majority of the US population?

California is the one that gets extra representation. They have the highest amount of electoral votes of any other State in the Union.

Actually, in proportion to their population, California is underrepresented. Right now, CA should have 56 EV, not 55.

Illegals are not counted as citizens.

yet slaves were.

go figure

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Maybe because our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience of living with no representation, and thought it was a bad thing.

People in smaller states don't have "more representation". They just have a different sort from what suits your simplistic, juvenile worldview.

No, you're mathematically wrong. People who live in smaller population states have more electoral clout for the presidential election than people in large population states.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

informative but it leaves out the winner-take-all effect.....which gives way to much clout to California. texas and NewYork

They have the most people, they should have the biggest voices. As for the losers in those winner take all elections...you simply can never make everyone happy, they chose to be on team California or team Texas. Their tribe has spoken, and it didn't go their way, too bad better luck next time.

then the compact of the states would be broken. Large states get more votes in one chamber of the Legislature. To argue for equality across the board, popular democracy, would be to argue for a violent revolution

 

[peach174]

National Popular Vote does not give equal or fair votes to the States that have fewer populations.
The Larger Mob always wins and gives no representation to the minorities of the Nation.
This is exactly why our Founders set up our Government as a Republic where the mob does not control everyone.

Yes it does....1 person 1 vote. Why should it matter where the person lives when electing a national leader?

Why should people in smaller states have more representation for electing the president than people from large states?

Maybe because our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience of living with no representation, and thought it was a bad thing.

People in smaller states don't have "more representation". They just have a different sort from what suits your simplistic, juvenile worldview.

No, you're mathematically wrong. People who live in smaller population states have more electoral clout for the presidential election than people in large population states.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

The electoral votes are based on the number of citizens for each state based on the 10 year census.
The census favored the Dems for the last 40 years. 4 census
The census done in 2010 favored the republicans and the left has had a fit over it ever since.
U. S. Electoral College How are the Electoral College Votes Allocated
Electoral votes are allocated based on the Census
2010 census -The Census Bureau's reapportionment of congressional seats, announced yesterday(December 22, 2010), helps Republicans and hurts Democrats.
And the left accuse the right of not being educated.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Because we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy - and thankfully so.

Because the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island conducted popular elections for Governor. If popular election of a state’s chief executive meant that these four states were not a “republic,” then all four would have been in immediate violation of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”). If the states were not “republics,” the delegates from these four states would not have voted for the Constitution at the Convention and these four states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia).

No one ever said the EC 'makes' the United States a Constitutional Republic; the United States is a Constitutional Republic because that was the Framers' intent, to wisely eschew a direct democracy and referenda and opt for representative democracy where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...” Article VI, Section 4, US Constitution.

The EC, therefore, reflects the Framers' intent to create a Republic, where the EC is consistent with a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

and their intent is not the word of god. But the Constitution is the law. We can change everything, if we can convince others to go along -- or by force of arms as the Whigs, the rebels did against the Loyalist Tories

 

[there4eyeM]

"You are confusing the 'democratic process' with a democratic system. We live in a representative, democratic republic. Using your own logic and argument, all forms of government should be called archaic."
This itself is not at all a logical extension of what the post says.

"Stating "all other elected Federal offices are by direct vote" is not by itself, an argument."
If precedent and example are not good arguments, Common Law is out the window.

"Saying people you disagree with ignore that fact is disingenuous at best and scumbag lying at worst."
It would be more polite to simply call them 'scumbags'?

"the rest of your post is an attack on motives or thinking of others -- motives and thinking you FAIL to back up in argument"

The rest is clearly expressed as opinion and reflects not at all on anyone else.

To say the process is anit-democratic is exactly what, according to you, it is meant to be; i.e., against (anti) (too much, though according to whom?) democracy. I know well the history of democracies and the excesses associated. That does not mean democratic processes are all bad. Otherwise, why would there be any direct elections?

A healthy distrust of democracy is a good thing. A healthy distrust of government in general is a good thing. A distrust of power is necessary. The present state of things in the US leaves far too much power with far too few people and will change. The change can be more or less pleasant and constructive. We can well fear that extremists of some shade will be in charge.

 

[peach174]

It does not give them more representation.
It gives them a fairer representation over the majority and gives the few a voice.

What do you mean by fairer representation? Fair representation in my opinion is one vote for one person. When certain states get extra representation just for being small enough that's not fair, that's manipulation. Who said minorities are more important than majority of the US population?

California is the one that gets extra representation. They have the highest amount of electoral votes of any other State in the Union.

Actually, in proportion to their population, California is underrepresented. Right now, CA should have 56 EV, not 55.

Illegals are not counted as citizens.

yet slaves were.

go figure

Slaves were not illegals.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes it does....1 person 1 vote. Why should it matter where the person lives when electing a national leader?

Why should people in smaller states have more representation for electing the president than people from large states?

Maybe because our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience of living with no representation, and thought it was a bad thing.

People in smaller states don't have "more representation". They just have a different sort from what suits your simplistic, juvenile worldview.

No, you're mathematically wrong. People who live in smaller population states have more electoral clout for the presidential election than people in large population states.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

The electoral votes are based on the number of citizens for each state based on the 10 year census.
The census favored the Dems for the last 40 years. 4 census
The census done in 2010 favored the republicans and the left has had a fit over it ever since.
U. S. Electoral College How are the Electoral College Votes Allocated
Electoral votes are allocated based on the Census
2010 census -The Census Bureau's reapportionment of congressional seats, announced yesterday(December 22, 2010), helps Republicans and hurts Democrats.
And the left accuse the right of not being educated.

Elbridge Gerry

 

[peach174]

Maybe because our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience of living with no representation, and thought it was a bad thing.

People in smaller states don't have "more representation". They just have a different sort from what suits your simplistic, juvenile worldview.

No, you're mathematically wrong. People who live in smaller population states have more electoral clout for the presidential election than people in large population states.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

The electoral votes are based on the number of citizens for each state based on the 10 year census.
The census favored the Dems for the last 40 years. 4 census
The census done in 2010 favored the republicans and the left has had a fit over it ever since.
U. S. Electoral College How are the Electoral College Votes Allocated
Electoral votes are allocated based on the Census
2010 census -The Census Bureau's reapportionment of congressional seats, announced yesterday(December 22, 2010), helps Republicans and hurts Democrats.
And the left accuse the right of not being educated.

Elbridge Gerry

That is exactly how Charles Rangel has stayed in power since 1971.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What do you mean by fairer representation? Fair representation in my opinion is one vote for one person. When certain states get extra representation just for being small enough that's not fair, that's manipulation. Who said minorities are more important than majority of the US population?

California is the one that gets extra representation. They have the highest amount of electoral votes of any other State in the Union.

Actually, in proportion to their population, California is underrepresented. Right now, CA should have 56 EV, not 55.

Illegals are not counted as citizens.

yet slaves were.

go figure

Slaves were not illegals.

they were not citizens either

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, you're mathematically wrong. People who live in smaller population states have more electoral clout for the presidential election than people in large population states.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

The electoral votes are based on the number of citizens for each state based on the 10 year census.
The census favored the Dems for the last 40 years. 4 census
The census done in 2010 favored the republicans and the left has had a fit over it ever since.
U. S. Electoral College How are the Electoral College Votes Allocated
Electoral votes are allocated based on the Census
2010 census -The Census Bureau's reapportionment of congressional seats, announced yesterday(December 22, 2010), helps Republicans and hurts Democrats.
And the left accuse the right of not being educated.

Elbridge Gerry

That is exactly how Charles Rangel has stayed in power since 1971.

And?

It's American tradition. So why do Republicans and conservatives deny this is what they have been doing? Because if they did -- HOW they did it would cause investigations that may turn criminal?

 

[peach174]

California is the one that gets extra representation. They have the highest amount of electoral votes of any other State in the Union.

Actually, in proportion to their population, California is underrepresented. Right now, CA should have 56 EV, not 55.

Illegals are not counted as citizens.

yet slaves were.

go figure

Slaves were not illegals.

they were not citizens either

They were property just like women were.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Stating "all other elected Federal offices are by direct vote" is not by itself, an argument."

This is a good question and the answer to it is 'to be anti-democratic'. The people who insist that America is a republic and not a democracy (a ludicrous and empty argument, granted) seem attached to preserving this archaic institution in order to memorialize their discontent with and distrust of democratic processes. They like to ignore that all other elected Federal offices are by direct vote. They like to ignore that the House, which holds the purse strings and thus (at least in theory, as was the intention) control of what the Federal Government can do, is the most democratic aspect of American government. It is entirely elected every two years. Why the individual who administers the funds allowed by this overwhelmingly democratically elected assembly should not in turn be elected by direct vote is without valid support.
Any historical sense it may have made hundreds of years ago has long since evaporated.

"You are confusing the 'democratic process' with a democratic system. We live in a representative, democratic republic. Using your own logic and argument, all forms of government should be called archaic."
This itself is not at all a logical extension of what the post says.

"Stating "all other elected Federal offices are by direct vote" is not by itself, an argument."
If precedent and example are not good arguments, Common Law is out the window.

"Saying people you disagree with ignore that fact is disingenuous at best and scumbag lying at worst."
It would be more polite to simply call them 'scumbags'?

"the rest of your post is an attack on motives or thinking of others -- motives and thinking you FAIL to back up in argument"

The rest is clearly expressed as opinion and reflects not at all on anyone else.

To say the process is anit-democratic is exactly what, according to you, it is meant to be; i.e., against (anti) (too much, though according to whom?) democracy. I know well the history of democracies and the excesses associated. That does not mean democratic processes are all bad. Otherwise, why would there be any direct elections?

A healthy distrust of democracy is a good thing. A healthy distrust of government in general is a good thing. A distrust of power is necessary. The present state of things in the US leaves far too much power with far too few people and will change. The change can be more or less pleasant and constructive. We can well fear that extremists of some shade will be in charge.

"Stating "all other elected Federal offices are by direct vote" is not by itself, an argument."


...and1`
Common law IS precedent.

you left out the link to the quoted post, your first comment if linked to would betray your dis-ingenuousness

"You are confusing the 'democratic process' with a democratic system. We live in a representative, democratic republic. Using your own logic and argument, all forms of government should be called archaic."
This itself is not at all a logical extension of what the post says.

Electoral College. Just why Page 20 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
Precedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

but: "Stating "all other elected Federal offices are by direct vote" is not by itself, an argument."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This is a good question and the answer to it is 'to be anti-democratic'. The people who insist that America is a republic and not a democracy (a ludicrous and empty argument, granted) seem attached to preserving this archaic institution in order to memorialize their discontent with and distrust of democratic processes. They like to ignore that all other elected Federal offices are by direct vote. They like to ignore that the House, which holds the purse strings and thus (at least in theory, as was the intention) control of what the Federal Government can do, is the most democratic aspect of American government. It is entirely elected every two years. Why the individual who administers the funds allowed by this overwhelmingly democratically elected assembly should not in turn be elected by direct vote is without valid support.
Any historical sense it may have made hundreds of years ago has long since evaporated.

You are confusing the 'democratic process' with a democratic system. We live in a representative, democratic republic. Using your own logic and argument, all forms of government should be called archaic.

Stating "all other elected Federal offices are by direct vote" is not by itself, an argument. Saying people you disagree with ignore that fact is disingenuous at best and scumbag lying at worst.

the rest of your post is an attack on motives or thinking of others -- motives and thinking you FAIL to back up in argument

...

 

[peach174]

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

The electoral votes are based on the number of citizens for each state based on the 10 year census.
The census favored the Dems for the last 40 years. 4 census
The census done in 2010 favored the republicans and the left has had a fit over it ever since.
U. S. Electoral College How are the Electoral College Votes Allocated
Electoral votes are allocated based on the Census
2010 census -The Census Bureau's reapportionment of congressional seats, announced yesterday(December 22, 2010), helps Republicans and hurts Democrats.
And the left accuse the right of not being educated.

Elbridge Gerry

That is exactly how Charles Rangel has stayed in power since 1971.

And?

It's American tradition. So why do Republicans and conservatives deny this is what they have been doing? Because if they did -- HOW they did it would cause investigations that may turn criminal?

The courts seem to have worked out most of it, this last time.
Not all districts have done gerrymandering it depends how each State sets it up.

 

[Nyvin]

Yes it does....1 person 1 vote. Why should it matter where the person lives when electing a national leader?

Why should people in smaller states have more representation for electing the president than people from large states?

Maybe because our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience of living with no representation, and thought it was a bad thing.

People in smaller states don't have "more representation". They just have a different sort from what suits your simplistic, juvenile worldview.

No, you're mathematically wrong. People who live in smaller population states have more electoral clout for the presidential election than people in large population states.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

The electoral votes are based on the number of citizens for each state based on the 10 year census.
The census favored the Dems for the last 40 years. 4 census
The census done in 2010 favored the republicans and the left has had a fit over it ever since.
U. S. Electoral College How are the Electoral College Votes Allocated
Electoral votes are allocated based on the Census
2010 census -The Census Bureau's reapportionment of congressional seats, announced yesterday(December 22, 2010), helps Republicans and hurts Democrats.
And the left accuse the right of not being educated.

This has absolutely no relationship to the electoral college whatsoever. What you're going at is gerrymandering of congressional districts which is a completely different issue.

 

[peach174]

Maybe because our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience of living with no representation, and thought it was a bad thing.

People in smaller states don't have "more representation". They just have a different sort from what suits your simplistic, juvenile worldview.

No, you're mathematically wrong. People who live in smaller population states have more electoral clout for the presidential election than people in large population states.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

The electoral votes are based on the number of citizens for each state based on the 10 year census.
The census favored the Dems for the last 40 years. 4 census
The census done in 2010 favored the republicans and the left has had a fit over it ever since.
U. S. Electoral College How are the Electoral College Votes Allocated
Electoral votes are allocated based on the Census
2010 census -The Census Bureau's reapportionment of congressional seats, announced yesterday(December 22, 2010), helps Republicans and hurts Democrats.
And the left accuse the right of not being educated.

This has absolutely no relationship to the electoral college whatsoever. What you're going at is gerrymandering of congressional districts which is a completely different issue.

I was answering your question of how the last census favored the republicans.
I said nothing at all about gerrymandering.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Maybe because our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience of living with no representation, and thought it was a bad thing.

People in smaller states don't have "more representation". They just have a different sort from what suits your simplistic, juvenile worldview.

No, you're mathematically wrong. People who live in smaller population states have more electoral clout for the presidential election than people in large population states.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

The electoral votes are based on the number of citizens for each state based on the 10 year census.
The census favored the Dems for the last 40 years. 4 census
The census done in 2010 favored the republicans and the left has had a fit over it ever since.
U. S. Electoral College How are the Electoral College Votes Allocated
Electoral votes are allocated based on the Census
2010 census -The Census Bureau's reapportionment of congressional seats, announced yesterday(December 22, 2010), helps Republicans and hurts Democrats.
And the left accuse the right of not being educated.

This has absolutely no relationship to the electoral college whatsoever. What you're going at is gerrymandering of congressional districts which is a completely different issue.

Huh?

Imbecile alert!!!!!!!!

Gerrymandering is about stacking a district of redistricting. Just be honest. It's American tradition. So why do Republicans and conservatives deny this is what they have been doing? Because if they did -- HOW they did it would cause investigations that may turn criminal?