The Purpose of the Electoral College

[Pogo]

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?

Once AGAIN --- Wyoming has one Rep per 586,107 people. California, one per 738,531. That's not a significant difference on that scale, but the difference there is is in favor of Wyoming, not California.

Your posts remind me of a movie. "Dumb and Dumber".

 

[Boss]

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.

Again, the Constitution outlines the process. If you want to change the process from what the Constitution says in Article II Sec 1, you need to amend the Constitution... there's not another way around that.

I don't have any problem with the Electoral College and the process outlined in Article II Sec. 1. Like I said, IF you want to change things so that states have to split their EC votes according to the popular vote, I am fine with that as long as we mandate election results not be disclosed until after all polls are closed nationwide.

Getting rid of the EC and going with a nationwide popular vote for president will require a Constitutional Amendment and I don't believe you'll ever get one ratified. It would require 38 states, most of whom would be giving up political power in federal government. They're just not going to do that in this universe.

 

[Pogo]

Again, the Constitution outlines the process. If you want to change the process from what the Constitution says in Article II Sec 1, you need to amend the Constitution... there's not another way around that.

Again, that Constitution does *NOT* require a "winner take all" format, and does *NOT* even require that states hold a vote at all. A state can literally flip a coin in lieu of an election if they so choose. I don't think that fact penetrates your titanium cranium.

 

[Boss]

Once AGAIN --- Wyoming has one Rep per 586,107 people. California, one per 738,531. That's not a significant difference on that scale, but the difference there is is in favor of Wyoming, not California.

Uhm... No, that's a considerably significant difference.

 

[Boss]

Again, the Constitution outlines the process. If you want to change the process from what the Constitution says in Article II Sec 1, you need to amend the Constitution... there's not another way around that.

Again, that Constitution does *NOT* require a "winner take all" format, and does *NOT* even require that states hold a vote at all. A state can literally flip a coin in lieu of an election if they so choose. I don't think that fact penetrates your titanium cranium.

I did not fucking say that the Constitution required a winner-take-all format!

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN --- Wyoming has one Rep per 586,107 people. California, one per 738,531. That's not a significant difference on that scale, but the difference there is is in favor of Wyoming, not California.

Uhm... No, that's a considerably significant difference.

Uhm, not really. 20%. But if you insist, then OK Wyoming has 20% more Rep clout than California.

See what I mean about Dumb and Dumber? You shoulda quit while you were even.

 

[Boss]

A state can literally flip a coin in lieu of an election if they so choose. I don't think that fact penetrates your titanium cranium.

Well the state legislature can do that if they want to but they don't and there is a good reason for that. I shouldn't have to explain it to you if you're more than 7 years old. What the State CAN'T do is abandon the EC and change the presidential election to a national popular vote.

 

[Boss]

Uhm, not really. 20%. But if you insist, then OK Wyoming has 20% more Rep clout than California.

Which is why I suggested you would like to give California 30 more representatives so Wyoming wouldn't have more Rep clout. And we also need to disband the Senate which is totally unfair... they shouldn't get the same number of Senators as California... right?

You see... dumbass... they get 20% more Rep clout because our framers were fucking geniuses. They established a system where smaller population states would have more power so they wouldn't have their rights trampled by the larger states. That's part of what makes us a fucking Republic and not a Democracy.

 

[Pogo]

Uhm, not really. 20%. But if you insist, then OK Wyoming has 20% more Rep clout than California.

Which is why I suggested you would like to give California 30 more representatives so Wyoming wouldn't have more Rep clout. And we also need to disband the Senate which is totally unfair... they shouldn't get the same number of Senators as California... right?

You see... dumbass... they get 20% more Rep clout because our framers were fucking geniuses. They established a system where smaller population states would have more power so they wouldn't have their rights trampled by the larger states. That's part of what makes us a fucking Republic and not a Democracy.

No stupid. They have more Rep clout because California's population has grown faster. The Framers would have had no idea that California and Wyoming would even exist in 2016, let alone what their fucking populations would be. And because "one" is the lowest number of representatives you can have, since you can't have three-fifths of a person any more.



That had to be the stupidest thing I've read all day.

 

[EverCurious]

Yep so fuck all those farmers, and people who like open spaces, and states forced to be national parks, and small towns across America. Because California and New York are more "important"

Alaska will not be lorded over by CA or NY, we played that "territory" game and lower 48 bastards raped Alaska's resources and oppressed Alaskan voices for nearly a century. NEVER AGAIN.

 

[Londoner]

It keeps large density cities from over powering the rural areas.

Ya know, like how the soviets collectivized the farms after they disarmed everyone...

Yeah...

I member...

I also remember how many millions disappeared or were forced to starve because they resisted having their hard work confiscated.

No it doesn't, clownstick.

What it does is divides and disenfranchises. In the original form it divided "free" states from "slave" states, who usied it to dominate the country's first four decades, by using the disenfranchised. When the Reconstruction Amendments put that to rest it divided women from the ballot box by keeping them disenfranchised. And today it divides artificially-contrived "red" states from artificially-contrived "blue" states and tosses in the trash everybody who didn't vote with their state. It perpetuates the Duopoly, it keeps turnout low, and it makes us dependent on polls to find out if it's even worth getting out of bed on Election Day in hopes that we live in a third artificially-contrived type, a "swing" state so that we can imagine our vote actually counts for something.

Interesting articles about the voting power of Blue v Red...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/o...tates-are-the-real-tea-party.html?ref=opinion

States like California pay more in federal taxes than they receive in benefits while rural red states take more than they give. Here is the comedy: each Californian's presidential vote is worth less than the TAKERS whom they subsidize.

Good work if you can get it.

(And don't think for one second that "States Rights" or "Small Government" is going to save Blue States. Republicans wield federal power with brutal efficiency. Washington is about to get big y'all. Jeff Sessions has already declared a Jihad on gays, pot smokers and minority voting rights. By the time this is all over, we'll be picking pieces of San Francisco out of his stool)

 

[Boss]

Uhm, not really. 20%. But if you insist, then OK Wyoming has 20% more Rep clout than California.

Which is why I suggested you would like to give California 30 more representatives so Wyoming wouldn't have more Rep clout. And we also need to disband the Senate which is totally unfair... they shouldn't get the same number of Senators as California... right?

You see... dumbass... they get 20% more Rep clout because our framers were fucking geniuses. They established a system where smaller population states would have more power so they wouldn't have their rights trampled by the larger states. That's part of what makes us a fucking Republic and not a Democracy.

No stupid. They have more Rep clout because California's population has grown faster. The Framers would have had no idea that California and Wyoming would even exist in 2016, let alone what their fucking populations would be. And because "one" is the lowest number of representatives you can have, since you can't have three-fifths of a person any more.



That had to be the stupidest thing I've read all day.

Do you like smoke weed or something? Why am I having such a difficult time communicating with you? I understand California and Wyoming didn't exist in 1776... I never claimed they did. I was talking about the EC system... not the specific fucking states, moron!

The number of total representatives has been fixed by law since 1911. I would imagine every state has grown in population since 1911. (see: Apportionment Act of 1911) Each state’s congressional delegation changes as a result of population shifts, with states either gaining or losing seats based on population after every census. But the number of total Representatives is capped at 437.

Now, I don't understand why you think that is stupid... it's simply the way the founders established our bicameral congress. Small states will always have more representation per person because they are small states. Just like small states will always have two senators the same as big states. It has nothing to do with California growing faster.

 

[Pogo]

SMH............

In 1911 the population of Wyoming was about 150,000. that's one rep per 150,000 people --- which is very high compared to today, simply because "one" is the minimum number of persons that can be a Representative. In other words it had room to grow. You can't be divided up into three-fifths of a person any more, speaking of the actual thread topic.

In 1911 the population of California was under 2.5 million and it was apportioned eleven Congressional Districts That's one rep per 227,000 people. Massachusetts at the time got 16. That's an indication of how much California grew.

That means Wyoming grew its population by about 3.5 times, while California grew its by about 16 times.
California grew so much that it got reapportioned from 11 to 53 seats --- more than quadruple. While Wyoming remained at one, being the lowest-populated state.

Still with us?

Today one Wyoming Rep represents about 563,000 people (the whole state) while one California Rep represents, on average, 702,000. Which means a Wyoming Congresscritter is worth 25% more than one from California, because he represents fewer people.

That's not a lot, but it is more.

Now a HIGHER number of inhabitants-per-representative means a LOWER level of what we're calling "clout" -- proportional representation. So where in 1911 Wyoming had 1.5 times the "clout" of California as regards the House of Representatives, it now has about 1.25 times. Because, again, California has added to its population many times faster than Wyoming. and its reapportionment has not-quite kept pace at the same ratio. Adding to population while the number of Reps stays constant, means you have LESS proportional representation. Both added but California added many times more.

As long as the Apportionment Act keeps 435 as a fixed number while populations experience natural increase, their proportional representation power diminishes. The more a state's population increases, the less proportional power it has. Since, again, "one" is still the minimum number of people a person can be, Wyoming still has the second-most "clout" in the House per its population. Constituents-per-rep range from a low of 528,000 in Rhode Island to over a million in Montana.

All of which, with the exception of the reference to three-fifths of a person, is off the topic here.

 

[Boss]

Okay, so you just took twice the space in #93 to articulate exactly what I articulated in #92, while smugly acting like you were "explaining" it to me. I really don't get the point of that other than self-aggrandizing.

The 3/5 compromise was a measure adopted when we had slavery so that the Southern slave states wouldn't be unreasonably represented. It has nothing to do with anything now because we don't have slavery anymore. I don't have a clue why you continue to insist on bringing it up.

The bottom line is, the EC system is designed to prevent larger population states from steamrollering smaller state's interests. State interests are important regardless of the population of the state, that's why we have a Senate. When people start talking about getting rid of the EC, then we may as well get rid of the Senate and States as well. We should just become one big giant state. I don't like this idea because I think political interests would center on the high population areas and rural people would be largely ignored.

I like having States and I like having the EC and the system we have. IF you want to talk about changes from winner-take-all to proportional electors, that's fine... I don't have a problem with that conversation.

 

[Pogo]

The 3/5 compromise was a measure adopted when we had slavery so that the Southern slave states wouldn't be unreasonably represented.

OH no no no no no no no. What a load of complete bullshit.
The Three-Fifths Compromise allowed the slave states to count 60% of their slaves as population --- without of course giving them a vote --- which inflated their representational numbers so that they could dominate via that artificial inflation. Don't you GET that?

Again this is simple math --- ADDING 60% of your non-voting slaves cannot on any planet be characterized as "limiting" anything. It doesn't "limit" anything but the power of other states who have to actually count their population LEGITIMATELY.

Far from "so that they wouldn't be unreasonably represented it GUARANTEED they would be.

It has nothing to do with anything now because we don't have slavery anymore. I don't have a clue why you continue to insist on bringing it up.

It's a major part of the Electoral College's function as designed. Maybe it's about time to wake up and smell the coffee. And it's the first of many examples of how the EC serves to divide the country, which is what it's done consistently from its inception to this moment.

The bottom line is, the EC system is designed to prevent larger population states from steamrollering smaller state's interests.

Is that what they told you in Whitewased History class?

The reality is that it poured the power into the slaveholder interests and ensured that eight of the first nine Presidential administrations were headed by slaveholders from the South --- specifically from Virginia, the largest "population" state --- not really, but made so by the fake 3/5 Compromise numbers so that it had the most electoral votes --- so that it, Virginia, could steamroller smaller states' interests.

Which they did. Know how long this country dragged on without addressing the elephant-in-the-room question of slavery, hanging on while other nations in Europe and the Americas were reforming themselves?

Does it ever occur to you in reading the list of Presidents that "Virginia" keeps coming up? Ever wonder why? It's not an accident; it was engineered that way. And leading to the next point below, the only break in the Virginia domination of this country's first four decades was the single term of John Adams of Massachusetts; it was when that happened that the power-hungry adopted the "winner-take-all" system so that Virginia's already-inflated EV could be weighted more in its favor. And it worked, as Virginians then took back the White House for another 24 straight years.

There, my lad, is your "larger state steamrolling smaller states' (and regions') interests. And doing so via the artificial bullshit population numbers that allowed it with a wink to dominate----- the Electoral College.

I like having States and I like having the EC and the system we have. IF you want to talk about changes from winner-take-all to proportional electors, that's fine... I don't have a problem with that conversation.

That is the first and foremost glaring issue, and it has always been my starting point. The idea of any state telling Congress that "it's unanimous, everybody in our state voted for candidate X" is absurd on its face. And as I've described that dynamic (a) renders irrelevant the vote of every voter in a "locked" state whether they agree or disagree with their own state's plurality; it (b) creates artificial and entirely bullshit division concepts of "red" and "blue" states; it (c) restricts candidates to so-called "battleground" states and ensures that most Americans will never even see them; it (d) makes us all dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on Election Day; and it (e) perpetuates and protects the Duopoly of two lookalike parties both of which have been around way too long and no longer stand for anything except the self-perpetuation of their own power and the Duopoly on which it stands, one nation, divisible, with color-codes and bullshit division-category terms for all.

"Electoral College" is in effect the opposite of "E Pluribus Unum" It's time we wake up to that fact. Even if it means ---- horrors ---- actually questioning the history books we were served as children.

 

[Pogo]

The 3/5 compromise was a measure adopted when we had slavery so that the Southern slave states wouldn't be unreasonably represented.

OH no no no no no no no. What a load of complete bullshit.
The Three-Fifths Compromise allowed the slave states to count 60% of their slaves as population --- without of course giving them a vote --- which inflated their representational numbers so that they could dominate via that artificial inflation. Don't you GET that?

Again this is simple math --- ADDING 60% of your non-voting slaves cannot on any planet be characterized as "limiting" anything. It doesn't "limit" anything but the power of other states who have to actually count their population LEGITIMATELY.

Far from "so that they wouldn't be unreasonably represented it GUARANTEED they would be.

It has nothing to do with anything now because we don't have slavery anymore. I don't have a clue why you continue to insist on bringing it up.

It's a major part of the Electoral College's function as designed. Maybe it's about time to wake up and smell the coffee. And it's the first of many examples of how the EC serves to divide the country, which is what it's done consistently from its inception to this moment.

The bottom line is, the EC system is designed to prevent larger population states from steamrollering smaller state's interests.

Is that what they told you in Whitewased History class?

The reality is that it poured the power into the slaveholder interests and ensured that eight of the first nine Presidential administrations were headed by slaveholders from the South --- specifically from Virginia, the largest "population" state --- not really, but made so by the fake 3/5 Compromise numbers so that it had the most electoral votes --- so that it, Virginia, could steamroller smaller states' interests.

Which they did. Know how long this country dragged on without addressing the elephant-in-the-room question of slavery, hanging on while other nations in Europe and the Americas were reforming themselves?

Does it ever occur to you in reading the list of Presidents that "Virginia" keeps coming up? Ever wonder why? It's not an accident; it was engineered that way. And leading to the next point below, the only break in the Virginia domination of this country's first four decades was the single term of John Adams of Massachusetts; it was when that happened that the power-hungry adopted the "winner-take-all" system so that Virginia's already-inflated EV could be weighted more in its favor. And it worked, as Virginians then took back the White House for another 24 straight years.

There, my lad, is your "larger state steamrolling smaller states' (and regions') interests. And doing so via the artificial bullshit population numbers that allowed it with a wink to dominate----- the Electoral College.

I like having States and I like having the EC and the system we have. IF you want to talk about changes from winner-take-all to proportional electors, that's fine... I don't have a problem with that conversation.

That is the first and foremost glaring issue, and it has always been my starting point. The idea of any state telling Congress that "it's unanimous, everybody in our state voted for candidate X" is absurd on its face. And as I've described that dynamic (a) renders irrelevant the vote of every voter in a "locked" state whether they agree or disagree with their own state's plurality; it (b) creates artificial and entirely bullshit division concepts of "red" and "blue" states; it (c) restricts candidates to so-called "battleground" states and ensures that most Americans will never even see them; it (d) makes us all dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on Election Day; and it (e) perpetuates and protects the Duopoly of two lookalike parties both of which have been around way too long and no longer stand for anything except the self-perpetuation of their own power and the Duopoly on which it stands, one nation, divisible, with color-codes and bullshit division-category terms for all.

"Electoral College" is in effect the opposite of "E Pluribus Unum" It's time we wake up to that fact. Even if it means ---- horrors ---- actually questioning the history books we were served as children.

Related fun facts:
Virginia not only dominated the Presidency claiming four of the first five, but in the first six decades of this country up to 1850 the Presidency was held by a Southern slave owner for the entire period except three Presidents, all of whom served single scattered four-year terms bracketed by Southern slaveowners. Of those nine Southerner presidents, seven were from Virginia, which had engineered the Three-Fifths Compromise and the makeup of the Electrical College so that it could dominate (which it did).

The only breaks in those first 61 years were the aforementioned Adamses from Massachuetts and Van Buren. The first Adams as mentioned above served as a wake-up call for the Electoral Engineers (hee hee) who quickly installed the "winner take all" system so that Virginia could get back to dominating (which it did). The second Adams, in advocating Northern interests, saw some of the first inklings of what would happen when the North-South power struggle didn't go the South's way -- the Nullification Crisis, where South Carolina threatened to secede (and it had nothing to do with slavery, yet).

That Southern domination finally receded in 1850. A decade later the inevitable hit the fan -- the Civil War, the result of the country having ignored and/or suppressed the burning Slavery question. As a result the Three-Fifths thingy was thrown out, Virginia lost what we now call West Virginia, and, not counting Andrew Johnson, no Southerner and no Virginian reached the Presidency until Woodrow Wilson (and he needed a three-way race with a Republican split to do it). Happily Wilson was the last Southerner of that mindset (and the last Southern POTUS to be born before the Civil War).

The Electoral College was the instrument that enabled the South to set the table for all that.

 

[Boss]

Well Pogo, if you don't like our system I guess you can move?

The EC unites us as a nation. It unites us as STATES. Hence our name... The United States.

Bringing up the 3/5 compromise (note the word, compromise) and slavery, has nothing to do with why the framers established an EC. It can be used as a great example for why the EC works as intended. However, you're not honest enough to be objective about this.

You see, once was a time, our nation had an economy that depended almost solely on the agricultural production of cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. Without those vital resources, we could not have survived. Like it or not, all three required the use of slave labor to produce as well as land. States like Virginia had small populations of land owners while states like New York had large populations of city dwellers who benefited greatly from the agricultural industry.

Think of the nation as a car... Under the hood is the slave states and the passenger compartment is the non-slave states. There isn't much room for people under the hood, that's where all the mechanical workings are... it's hot and dirty, you wouldn't be comfortable there. Most would prefer to be in the passenger compartment instead. But you can't just up and decide to chop off the part under the hood or you no longer have a functional car. You can argue all day about which part is more important but the fact is, both parts are important. Just because there are more people in the passenger compartment doesn't make it more important.

Now if you have a system where only consideration was taken for what went on in the passenger compartment and the engine compartment was ignored, what would eventually happen to the car? Well, it would cease to operate because there are vital things happening under the hood and it requires maintenance and attention. So even though you're the equivalent of a dumb blonde who is only interested in cushy seats, air conditioning and nice tunes on the radio, it's best to have a Daddy like me to teach you how to check your oil.

 

[Pogo]

Well Pogo, if you don't like our system I guess you can move?

Illogical.
"Oh look, I spilled macaroni on the floor. I'll grab a paper towel and clean it up ---- or I guess I can just "move".

This is the cognate to the other wags who can't think of a counterargument, know they have no position, and tell me to "STFU".

Two ways of trying to dismiss the inconvenient. Two ways that are also never going to work.

The EC unites us as a nation. It unites us as STATES. Hence our name... The United States.

Absolute bullshit. There is absolutely nothing the EC does that unites us and myriad ways it does exactly the opposite, some (but not all) of which I've just articulated in this thread, to which the only counterargument is either "STFU" or "I guess you can move".

The contemporary divisive effect is, as noted, creating artificial bullshit barriers of "red states" and "blue states" and "flyover country" etc etc, making a patchwork of endlessly and increasingly warring regions. There's nothing in the least "uniting" about that. Classic example -- right here on this forum we've seen, recently, other wags calling for California to secede.... because it's a "blue state". Just as eight years ago we saw other wags encouraging Texas to do the same thing .... because it's a "red state".

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

These are sweeping generalizations contrived directly by the wackadoodle Electrical College system. There are millions of Californians who want nothing to do with "blueness" and millions of Texans who want nothing to do with "red" Without this insane system the concept of "red" and "blue" and " battleground" states ---- simply would not exist. We would be forced to be Americans instead of Red People versus Blue People. We could actually be individuals with personal opinions who actually had a reason to go to the polls on Election Day because our vote would actually count for something.

What a fuckin' nightmare huh Dim Dong?

Bringing up the 3/5 compromise (note the word, compromise) and slavery, has nothing to do with why the framers established an EC. It can be used as a great example for why the EC works as intended. However, you're not honest enough to be objective about this.

Actually it's got plentitudes to do with it, and with amassing power, as I just laid out in the two previous posts. That's history, and it's documented. And yes I proceeded to use it as an example of how the EC works as intended, thank you ... the difference is I actually understand what the intention was.

And you actually sat there and tried to sell the idea of counting slaves as three-fifths of a person as a way to LESSEN the slaveholders' interests. Just to try to dance around being on the wrong side of this point.

Hard to believe dood.

You see, once was a time, our nation had an economy that depended almost solely on the agricultural production of cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. Without those vital resources, we could not have survived. Like it or not, all three required the use of slave labor to produce as well as land. States like Virginia had small populations of land owners while states like New York had large populations of city dwellers who benefited greatly from the agricultural industry.

Think of the nation as a car... Under the hood is the slave states and the passenger compartment is the non-slave states. There isn't much room for people under the hood, that's where all the mechanical workings are... it's hot and dirty, you wouldn't be comfortable there. Most would prefer to be in the passenger compartment instead. But you can't just up and decide to chop off the part under the hood or you no longer have a functional car. You can argue all day about which part is more important but the fact is, both parts are important. Just because there are more people in the passenger compartment doesn't make it more important.

Now if you have a system where only consideration was taken for what went on in the passenger compartment and the engine compartment was ignored, what would eventually happen to the car? Well, it would cease to operate because there are vital things happening under the hood and it requires maintenance and attention. So even though you're the equivalent of a dumb blonde who is only interested in cushy seats, air conditioning and nice tunes on the radio, it's best to have a Daddy like me to teach you how to check your oil.

So this is what it comes down to --- a black guy defending slavery.

Or to be more correct, an internet wag who wants the world to think he's black. Now we begin perhaps to see why.

 

[Boss]

Illogical.
"Oh look, I spilled macaroni on the floor. I'll grab a paper towel and clean it up ---- or I guess I can just "move".

This is the cognate to the other wags who can't think of a counterargument, know they have no position, and tell me to "STFU". Two ways of trying to dismiss the inconvenient. Two ways that are also never going to work.

Well... aside from Amending the Constitution, which is not going to happen over this, that's really your only option... or you can just whine like a little bitch about it. Bottom line is, you are stuck with the EC.

 

[Boss]

And you actually sat there and tried to sell the idea of counting slaves as three-fifths of a person as a way to LESSEN the slaveholders' interests. Just to try to dance around being on the wrong side of this point.

Well that's exactly what it was. You choose the opposite perspective which is why it's called a "compromise". Still, it has nothing to do with present times because... uhm... we don't have slaves anymore and instead, we have the 14th Amendment.