Electoral College. Just why?

[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.

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.

yet one cannot separate the two

 

[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.

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.

yet one cannot separate the two

Yes you can.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

yet one cannot separate the two

Yes you can.

Huh? How? It's like discussing the resurrection of Jesus without the Cross. The cross represents more than just a simple nailing to a cross. The cross refers to the why and the how and coming salvation

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The census favored Republican districts that were Gerrymandered. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Let us all be honest. What could be wrong is the how and parts of the why of the gerrymandering and if it were done in certain ways.


IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS M. FINNERAN.

Texas court overturns Tom DeLay conviction

 

[peach174]

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.

yet one cannot separate the two

Yes you can.

Huh? How? It's like discussing the resurrection of Jesus without the Cross. The cross represents more than just a simple nailing to a cross. The cross refers to the why and the how and coming salvation

You are assuming that all districts are gerrymandering when they don't.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

yet one cannot separate the two

Yes you can.

Huh? How? It's like discussing the resurrection of Jesus without the Cross. The cross represents more than just a simple nailing to a cross. The cross refers to the why and the how and coming salvation

You are assuming that all districts are gerrymandering when they don't.

your assumption is in error. and one could easily argue they all are all of the time

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

ger·ry·man·der
ˈjerēˌmandər/
verb
gerund or present participle: gerrymandering

1. manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.
   • achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency.
     "a total freedom to gerrymander the results they want"

 

[dcraelin]

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.

I agree they should have the biggest voices...but not outsized voices.....when u figure in the winner-take-all....they have too much power

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you really, honestly think that California's population is based on illegal immigrants?

OMG, and here I kept thinking to myself that you were one of the more sane ones....

 

[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.

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.

I agree they should have the biggest voices...but not outsized voices.....when u figure in the winner-take-all....they have too much power

If 5 big states where considered supreme by popular vote and referendum the rest of the nation would revolt .. and I'd agree with them

 

[dcraelin]

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.

your looking at it strictly on a population to electoral vote ratio. With winner take all.. it means..the minority voter in California is clobbered. His vote not only counts for nothing,... because he helps with the census in giving many electoral votes to California in a way he (or she) contributes votes to the opposition.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you really, honestly think that California's population is based on illegal immigrants?

OMG, and here I kept thinking to myself that you were one of the more sane ones....

they are counted in some census data

 

[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.

your looking at it strictly on a population to electoral vote ratio. With winner take all.. it means..the minority voter in California is clobbered. His vote not only counts for nothing,... because he helps with the census in giving many electoral votes to California in a way he (or she) contributes votes to the opposition.

"Life is not fair"

 

[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.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you really, honestly think that California's population is based on illegal immigrants?

OMG, and here I kept thinking to myself that you were one of the more sane ones....

Not what I said at all.
It was a joke.
California Presidential Election Voting History

2010 Census Reapportionment: California will remain at 55 electoral votes through the 2020 presidential election. This is the first time California has not gained at least one electoral vote in a reapportionment.

This is because Californian did not have enough people moving to the State.
California s population gains not enough for another seat in Congress - latimes
California's population did not grow enough to gain additional congressional seats, the U.S. Census Bureau said Tuesday.

 

[OKTexas]

The number of electors are based on congressional representation, why shouldn't the people of each congressional district select their elector ,with the two electors represented by the States senate seats going to the one who wins the popular vote State wide? How would that change the 1 person 1 vote paradigm?

Because the way congressional districts are drawn in this country is downright absurd. If we changed to a congressional district method for the presidency we would have a very large number of elections where one party wins the election but loses the popular vote, right now that happens about once every 100 years. That in my opinion would be a very serious step backwards.

It would only be a step backwards for dems who would have to moderate to sell their ideas in more conservative areas. It would also put a stop to the 6 or 7 swing States determining elections for president and force politicians to campaign in the country as a whole, heaven forbid that should ever happen.

So you would be okay with a president getting elected despite winning 5 million fewer votes than his competitor?

Yep. Why should large metropolitan areas control the State, that's the way it is in most winner take all States, the rural areas are basically disenfranchised. That's not supposed to happen in a representative republic. The way Maine and Nebraska does it provides everyone a voice.

Because that's where the majority of the population lives in those states (or close to it). It shouldn't matter where the people are geographically, it just matters that each person gets 1 vote.

I'd be all for giving each congressional district it's own vote, as long as stricter guidelines are given for drawing congressional districts and not the partisan ink splotches we have now for districts.

Got it. You have no problem with large cities dictating policy for the whole State even if they have no clue what the needs of the rural areas are, those folks in sparsely populated areas don't deserve representation when choosing a president. Great way to rig elections for you libs I guess.

 

[OKTexas]

Because the way congressional districts are drawn in this country is downright absurd. If we changed to a congressional district method for the presidency we would have a very large number of elections where one party wins the election but loses the popular vote, right now that happens about once every 100 years. That in my opinion would be a very serious step backwards.

It would only be a step backwards for dems who would have to moderate to sell their ideas in more conservative areas. It would also put a stop to the 6 or 7 swing States determining elections for president and force politicians to campaign in the country as a whole, heaven forbid that should ever happen.

So you would be okay with a president getting elected despite winning 5 million fewer votes than his competitor?

Yep. Why should large metropolitan areas control the State, that's the way it is in most winner take all States, the rural areas are basically disenfranchised. That's not supposed to happen in a representative republic. The way Maine and Nebraska does it provides everyone a voice.

Because that's where the majority of the population lives in those states (or close to it). It shouldn't matter where the people are geographically, it just matters that each person gets 1 vote.

I'd be all for giving each congressional district it's own vote, as long as stricter guidelines are given for drawing congressional districts and not the partisan ink splotches we have now for districts.

instead maybe just have the states award proportionately according to the presidential vote.

I would have no problem with that either, it at least gives everyone a voice in the decision.

 

[Skylar]

Well, I guess you'd have to ask if you think direct election of senators was a good idea. Or if the State's electing them was better. If you think direct election of senators was the way to go, then fuck the electoral college. If you thought the States were foolish to give up that authority, then stick with it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Skylar

Well, I guess you'd have to ask if you think direct election of senators was a good idea. Or if the State's electing them was better. If you think direct election of senators was the way to go, then fuck the electoral college. If you thought the States were foolish to give up that authority, then stick with it.

gawd, that's dumb. The Senate and the House are two chambers of the legislative branch. There were reasons given for the choice of direct election of House members and the states electing Senate members. There are reasons people sided with direct elections of Senators. Simply stating nonsense like you is what unmasks your argument(s) as uninformed, silly, and retarded.

State governments electing a Senator or the of the people of the states electing Senators is still -- yep, you guessed it -- States getting to elect their own Senators.

Now try and pay attention. Try not to hurt your brain: why do you think some people (the founding generation) elected to have the states having an equal say in electing the President? Oh there were arguments for doing it all another way. Those arguments lost out. But unlike you, the backers of those arguments gave reasons...they didn't just sit in their own shit and yell idiocies like you do

 

[AntiParty]

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.

Great post!

By now you have probably heard from the "small government" groups stating "YOU CAN'T DO THAT".

I have brought it up on many forums and the "Conservatives" don't want the people to think topic for topic.

 

[AntiParty]

NO POLITICIANS REPRESENT THEIR PARTY TODAY.

NUFF SAID.

Time for THE PEOPLE to speak. Then steps in , anti-Democracy barbarians that think they will get rich if they follow protocol...