The Purpose of the Electoral College

[Boss]

Actually that's another question you never asked but no, I don't think California is underrepresented any more than most states. 738, 531 people per Rep puts it right in the middle of the pack (27th to be exact). Now Montana, there's a state that's underrepresented, with over a million. Delaware is close behind. Those would be the next two states to deserve additional seats if anyone does.

What a weird idea to attribute to somebody you never even put the question to. But I understand it's not the last....

Again... The state of Wyoming has 2 Senators, California has 2 Senators. Wyoming has 500k population and California has 40 million population. Therefore, California gets one Senator per 20 million people and Wyoming gets one Senator per 250k people. Not to mention, there has never in American history been a Senator elected by 100% of the vote... therefore, all Senators represent only a portion of the population who voted for them. If you did not vote for your Senator, your vote is "thrown way" as you put it.

My point has been that the same exact argument you are making against the EC also applies to Congress. If the EC is "unfair" then so is Congress. (The EC is actually based on Congress). You can't apply an argument against the EC that doesn't also apply equally to Congress. Unless you're an idiot.

 

[Boss]

I know how the Amendment process works kid. As I've pointed out throughout this thread, that's not the only way to amend the process.

Yes, that's the only way to amend the Constitution... Sorry kid.

THE CONSTITUTION

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Another candidate for Remedial Reading.

What I posted was "that's not the only way to amend the process". Not the Constitution --- the process.

It's still sitting there in the original wording. It was even italicized so the reader would not miss the point. Yet --- you found a way.

Uhm... the process is outlined in the Constitution.

 

[Boss]

States aren't "liberal" or "conservative". PEOPLE are. And while we're at it we should reiterate for you slow thinkers that states are also not "red" or "blue". Those are artificial bullshit divisions created solely by the Electrical College ---- without which process those terms simply would not exist.

No, red and blue states change all the time. In 2008 and 2012, Pennsylvania and Ohio were blue states, in 2016 they were red states. That wasn't determined by the Electoral College but rather, the voters of the state. Without the EC, I am sure there would STILL be liberals and conservatives or democrats and republicans... which is what the "red" and "blue" signify.

Again... why do I feel like I am arguing with a 7-year-old?

 

[Pogo]

I know how the Amendment process works kid. As I've pointed out throughout this thread, that's not the only way to amend the process.

Yes, that's the only way to amend the Constitution... Sorry kid.

THE CONSTITUTION

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Another candidate for Remedial Reading.

What I posted was "that's not the only way to amend the process". Not the Constitution --- the process.

It's still sitting there in the original wording. It was even italicized so the reader would not miss the point. Yet --- you found a way.

Uhm... the process is outlined in the Constitution.

No, it's outlined in my post. The part you didn't bother to read. Or did, and cut it out as inconvenient.

 

[Pogo]

States aren't "liberal" or "conservative". PEOPLE are. And while we're at it we should reiterate for you slow thinkers that states are also not "red" or "blue". Those are artificial bullshit divisions created solely by the Electrical College ---- without which process those terms simply would not exist.

No, red and blue states change all the time. In 2008 and 2012, Pennsylvania and Ohio were blue states, in 2016 they were red states. That wasn't determined by the Electoral College but rather, the voters of the state. Without the EC, I am sure there would STILL be liberals and conservatives or democrats and republicans... which is what the "red" and "blue" signify.

Again... why do I feel like I am arguing with a 7-year-old?

Because you have the intellect of a four-year-old?

Just a guess.

I see the point continues to sail blithely over your head. Must be, I dunno, deep or sump'm.

 

[Pogo]

Actually that's another question you never asked but no, I don't think California is underrepresented any more than most states. 738, 531 people per Rep puts it right in the middle of the pack (27th to be exact). Now Montana, there's a state that's underrepresented, with over a million. Delaware is close behind. Those would be the next two states to deserve additional seats if anyone does.

What a weird idea to attribute to somebody you never even put the question to. But I understand it's not the last....

Again... The state of Wyoming has 2 Senators, California has 2 Senators. Wyoming has 500k population and California has 40 million population. Therefore, California gets one Senator per 20 million people and Wyoming gets one Senator per 250k people. Not to mention, there has never in American history been a Senator elected by 100% of the vote... therefore, all Senators represent only a portion of the population who voted for them. If you did not vote for your Senator, your vote is "thrown way" as you put it.

My point has been that the same exact argument you are making against the EC also applies to Congress. If the EC is "unfair" then so is Congress. (The EC is actually based on Congress). You can't apply an argument against the EC that doesn't also apply equally to Congress. Unless you're an idiot.

No, California ---and Wyoming, and every other state --- get 2 Senators PER STATE, not per X number of people And yet you go on trying to argue against a point I never made and will not agree with. That's a special kind of special.

 

[Boss]

Now... If we want to make a change, I would be okay with altering the EC so that states can split their EC votes between candidates. In other words, California's 55 electors would be divided between Trump and Hillary based on percentage of the popular vote. And... IF we make a change like this, we need to also mandate that no election results can be announced until all polls are closed nationwide, including Alaska and Hawaii.

And for clarification (even though you quoted me on this) I wanted to point out that I already said that IF we want to make a change, this is what I am okay with. I see no reason why Hillary should win all 55 Electoral votes in California. They should be divided between the candidates according to voting totals. HOWEVER... in order to make this fair, you HAVE to outlaw releasing ANY election results until all polls are closed, else the losing party can always pad their numbers at the end of the election. It wouldn't be fair to let millions of Californians have the chance to flood the polls in order to win a few more EVs.

So if you're talking about a change from winner-take-all to proportional Electoral votes, I am okay with that under certain provisions. I am not okay with getting rid of the EC and going with a nationwide popular vote.

 

[Boss]

States aren't "liberal" or "conservative". PEOPLE are. And while we're at it we should reiterate for you slow thinkers that states are also not "red" or "blue". Those are artificial bullshit divisions created solely by the Electrical College ---- without which process those terms simply would not exist.

No, red and blue states change all the time. In 2008 and 2012, Pennsylvania and Ohio were blue states, in 2016 they were red states. That wasn't determined by the Electoral College but rather, the voters of the state. Without the EC, I am sure there would STILL be liberals and conservatives or democrats and republicans... which is what the "red" and "blue" signify.

Again... why do I feel like I am arguing with a 7-year-old?

Because you have the intellect of a four-year-old?

Just a guess.

I see the point continues to sail blithely over your head. Must be, I dunno, deep or sump'm.

Well no... the point seems to be going over YOUR head.

 

[Boss]

No, California ---and Wyoming, and every other state --- get 2 Senators PER STATE, not per X number of people And yet you go on trying to argue against a point I never made and will not agree with. That's a special kind of special.

I didn't say they get Senators per X number of people.

I used math.

40 million divided by 2 = 1 per 20 million.
500k divided by 2 = 1 per 250k.

I'm not trying to argue anything... I am simply making factual statements.

 

[Boss]

There are something like seven million voters in California and New York who voted for Rump. ALL of those seven million plus votes were discarded by the EC process. Every last one. Down the drain.

And this happens all the time... it's called the consequences of elections. When your candidate loses, your vote is meaningless because the other person won. They're not obligated to support what you want because you voted against them. Again... feeling like I'm having an argument with a 7-year-old here.

 

[Pogo]

Now... If we want to make a change, I would be okay with altering the EC so that states can split their EC votes between candidates. In other words, California's 55 electors would be divided between Trump and Hillary based on percentage of the popular vote. And... IF we make a change like this, we need to also mandate that no election results can be announced until all polls are closed nationwide, including Alaska and Hawaii.

And for clarification (even though you quoted me on this) I wanted to point out that I already said that IF we want to make a change, this is what I am okay with. I see no reason why Hillary should win all 55 Electoral votes in California. They should be divided between the candidates according to voting totals. HOWEVER... in order to make this fair, you HAVE to outlaw releasing ANY election results until all polls are closed, else the losing party can always pad their numbers at the end of the election. It wouldn't be fair to let millions of Californians have the chance to flood the polls in order to win a few more EVs.

So if you're talking about a change from winner-take-all to proportional Electoral votes, I am okay with that under certain provisions. I am not okay with getting rid of the EC and going with a nationwide popular vote.

Are you even aware that you just quoted yourself? Or is that over your head as well?

Again, a distinction without a difference. You come out with the same result. You're just using a relay instead of directly throwing a switch. And we already did this. And we had already done this in the past before we did it again.

 

[Pogo]

No, California ---and Wyoming, and every other state --- get 2 Senators PER STATE, not per X number of people And yet you go on trying to argue against a point I never made and will not agree with. That's a special kind of special.

I didn't say they get Senators per X number of people.

I used math.

40 million divided by 2 = 1 per 20 million.
500k divided by 2 = 1 per 250k.

I'm not trying to argue anything... I am simply making factual statements.

You used bullshit.
It's not "40 million divided by two" --- it's one times two.

 

[Boss]

Actually all the Constitution calls for is for the states to designate however many electors they're entitled to, have them vote, and transmit those votes to Congress. That's it. But exacty HOW each state comes up with those electors, and how they're instructed to vote, is entirely up to each state. They don't even have to hold an election at all. They can split if they want, they can even vote for a non-candidate.

I thought you said you want to get rid of the EC and go with a popular vote?

 

[Pogo]

Actually all the Constitution calls for is for the states to designate however many electors they're entitled to, have them vote, and transmit those votes to Congress. That's it. But exacty HOW each state comes up with those electors, and how they're instructed to vote, is entirely up to each state. They don't even have to hold an election at all. They can split if they want, they can even vote for a non-candidate.

I thought you said you want to get rid of the EC and go with a popular vote?

Actually I haven't said what I want. Everything to this point has been analyzing the effect of the EC as it is.
That has to come first before we move on to the next step.

 

[Boss]

Now... If we want to make a change, I would be okay with altering the EC so that states can split their EC votes between candidates. In other words, California's 55 electors would be divided between Trump and Hillary based on percentage of the popular vote. And... IF we make a change like this, we need to also mandate that no election results can be announced until all polls are closed nationwide, including Alaska and Hawaii.

And for clarification (even though you quoted me on this) I wanted to point out that I already said that IF we want to make a change, this is what I am okay with. I see no reason why Hillary should win all 55 Electoral votes in California. They should be divided between the candidates according to voting totals. HOWEVER... in order to make this fair, you HAVE to outlaw releasing ANY election results until all polls are closed, else the losing party can always pad their numbers at the end of the election. It wouldn't be fair to let millions of Californians have the chance to flood the polls in order to win a few more EVs.

So if you're talking about a change from winner-take-all to proportional Electoral votes, I am okay with that under certain provisions. I am not okay with getting rid of the EC and going with a nationwide popular vote.

Are you even aware that you just quoted yourself? Or is that over your head as well?

Again, a distinction without a difference. You come out with the same result. You're just using a relay instead of directly throwing a switch. And we already did this. And we had already done this in the past before we did it again.

Yes, I said I was pointing this out even though you had quoted it already.

It's most certainly NOT a distinction without a difference. If you cannot understand math enough to know that the Electoral votes are not proportional to the population nationwide, then I don't know what to tell you... go study math some more?

Again, California has 80x more population than Wyoming, yet they only get 55 electoral votes to 3 for Wyoming. Do the maths! Whether they divide them winner-take-all or proportionally, the still get the same number of electoral votes. Regardless of the method, that's not the same as a national popular vote where California would have a tremendous advantage over Wyoming with 80x more population.

 

[Boss]

Actually I haven't said what I want. Everything to this point has been analyzing the effect of the EC as it is.
That has to come first before we move on to the next step.

You're not going to move to ANY step until you Amend the Constitution.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Using a PV system would by definition eliminate the bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states". Consequently ALL those states that are already locked by the EC system (and only by that) are ignored by candidates, because they either have the state's EVs locked up already (which makes campaigning here a waste of time), or they have no shot at them (which makes campaigning there a waste of time).

Bullshit! Every election there are swing states. They constantly change. Pennsylvania hasn't gone Republican since 1984. Ronald Reagan won California in a landslide.

No, not "bullshit" at all. The entire concepts of "red state", "blue state" and "swing state" are completely contrived by the Electoral College system. Without that process ------- there's no such thing. NONE of those terms exist. There are simply states. Not "Blue" states or "Red" states or "purple" states, just ---- united states.


And some of the people in that state vote this way and other people in that state vote that way. There's no such thing as any state anywhere where EVERYBODY votes one way. ALL of that is a bullshit artificial dividing line that the Electoral College creates to split up and polarize this country.

Without that process ------- there's no such thing.


So you finnaly get it. With out the EC the united states wouldnt exist today...

 

[Pogo]

Actually I haven't said what I want. Everything to this point has been analyzing the effect of the EC as it is.
That has to come first before we move on to the next step.

You're not going to move to ANY step until you Amend the Constitution.

If that's what lies ahead then that's what lies ahead. Whatever. But *BEFORE* that happens, the process must be analyzed and the problems with it identified. And that's what I've been doing all along. There is in fact an entire thread for this and it's been around for a month.

 

[Pogo]

Using a PV system would by definition eliminate the bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states". Consequently ALL those states that are already locked by the EC system (and only by that) are ignored by candidates, because they either have the state's EVs locked up already (which makes campaigning here a waste of time), or they have no shot at them (which makes campaigning there a waste of time).

Bullshit! Every election there are swing states. They constantly change. Pennsylvania hasn't gone Republican since 1984. Ronald Reagan won California in a landslide.

No, not "bullshit" at all. The entire concepts of "red state", "blue state" and "swing state" are completely contrived by the Electoral College system. Without that process ------- there's no such thing. NONE of those terms exist. There are simply states. Not "Blue" states or "Red" states or "purple" states, just ---- united states.


And some of the people in that state vote this way and other people in that state vote that way. There's no such thing as any state anywhere where EVERYBODY votes one way. ALL of that is a bullshit artificial dividing line that the Electoral College creates to split up and polarize this country.

Without that process ------- there's no such thing.


So you finnaly get it. With out the EC the united states wouldnt exist today...

Actually without the EC the united part would finally kick in. Because what we have now is the Divided States of America. That comes in two colors --- red and blue. And that's become so entrenched that morons like the poster above you think it's some kind of natural thing.

It isn't.

 

[Boss]

California - 55 EVs
Wyoming - 3 EVs.

California has 18.33 times more EVs than Wyoming.

California - 40 million population
Wyoming - 500k population

California has 80 times more population than Wyoming.

No matter HOW you divide the EVs, California will still have 18.33x more than Wyoming with 80x more population. And this is exactly in conjunction with the makeup of Congress. California has 53 Reps + 2 Senators... Wyoming has 1 Rep and 2 Senators.

So is Congress unfair?