A Vote in WY Counts 4x More than One in CA

[calamity]

CA Pop: 40,000,000
Electoral votes: 55
727,273 people per electoral vote

WY pop: 550,000
Electoral votes: 3
183,333 people per electoral vote

727,273/183,333 = 3.97 more people per electoral vote in California than Wyoming.

From New Mexico (2:1) down to Vermont (4:1), 15 smaller states have similar advantages in the Electoral College. And, it's worse when we look at the Senate. A person living in North Dakota has over 50x more representation in the Senate than someone from California: 20,000,000 people per senator vs 370,000.

The 51 Senators approving Kavanaugh represent about 20% of the country; a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a president who received only 46% of the nation's vote.

 

[Bucky]

CA Pop: 40,000,000
Electoral votes: 55
727,273 people per electoral vote

WY pop: 550,000
Electoral votes: 3
183,333 people per electoral vote

727,273/183,333 = 3.97 more people per electoral vote in California than Wyoming.

From New Mexico (2:1) down to Vermont (4:1), 15 smaller states have similar advantages in the Electoral College. And, it's worse when we look at the Senate. A person living in North Dakota has over 50x more representation in the Senate than someone from California: 20,000,000 people per senator vs 370,000.

The 51 Senators approving Kavanaugh represent about 20% of the country; a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a president who received only 46% of the nation's vote.

I already proposed dividing California into two states, and Washington into two states.

 

[calamity]

I already proposed dividing California into two states, and Washington into two states.

I say give Cali 4x more electoral votes or whatever math it takes to give each state equal representation in the EC.

 

[PirateMk1]

CA Pop: 40,000,000
Electoral votes: 55
727,273 people per electoral vote

WY pop: 550,000
Electoral votes: 3
183,333 people per electoral vote

727,273/183,333 = 3.97 more people per electoral vote in California than Wyoming.

From New Mexico (2:1) down to Vermont (4:1), 15 smaller states have similar advantages in the Electoral College. And, it's worse when we look at the Senate. A person living in North Dakota has over 50x more representation in the Senate than someone from California: 20,000,000 people per senator vs 370,000.

The 51 Senators approving Kavanaugh represent about 20% of the country; a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a president who received only 46% of the nation's vote.

Then winner take all needs to go.

 

[calamity]

Then winner take all needs to go.

That's the other thing that really sucks about the EC system. Lose a state by a few hundred votes, lose all their EV's. That's just dumb. It's especially a problem for Republicans in solid Blue states and Dems in the solid Red ones. I can see how that would really discourage voting.

 

[Kal'Stang]

CA Pop: 40,000,000
Electoral votes: 55
727,273 people per electoral vote

WY pop: 550,000
Electoral votes: 3
183,333 people per electoral vote

727,273/183,333 = 3.97 more people per electoral vote in California than Wyoming.

From New Mexico (2:1) down to Vermont (4:1), 15 smaller states have similar advantages in the Electoral College. And, it's worse when we look at the Senate. A person living in North Dakota has over 50x more representation in the Senate than someone from California: 20,000,000 people per senator vs 370,000.

The 51 Senators approving Kavanaugh represent about 20% of the country; a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a president who received only 46% of the nation's vote.

The only way to get rid of the EC is to make an Amendment to the Constitution. That's not going to happen and despite all the bravado no State would give up its sovereignty for it. Each of the States that are advocating for it knows that an Amendment to the Constitution on getting rid of the EC is NOT going to happen. Which is why they are advocating for it. It's nothing more than a wriggling worm to keep the local voters happy and complacent.

Now, making it to where the EC votes are not winner takes all IS doable and does not give up any State power.

 

[Kal'Stang]

That's the other thing that really sucks about the EC system. Lose a state by a few hundred votes, lose all their EV's. That's just dumb. It's especially a problem for Republicans in solid Blue states and Dems in the solid Red ones. I can see how that would really discourage voting.

Winner takes all has nothing to do with the EC. The EC in the Constitution does not demand such. States are the ones that voted to make it to where winners take all. States are the ones that determine how their EC votes are allocated. Not the Constitution.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

CA Pop: 40,000,000
Electoral votes: 55
727,273 people per electoral vote

WY pop: 550,000
Electoral votes: 3
183,333 people per electoral vote

727,273/183,333 = 3.97 more people per electoral vote in California than Wyoming.

From New Mexico (2:1) down to Vermont (4:1), 15 smaller states have similar advantages in the Electoral College. And, it's worse when we look at the Senate. A person living in North Dakota has over 50x more representation in the Senate than someone from California: 20,000,000 people per senator vs 370,000.

The 51 Senators approving Kavanaugh represent about 20% of the country; a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a president who received only 46% of the nation's vote.

Someone’s a sore loser.

 

[eohrnberger]

Someone’s a sore loser.

Would appear so.

Yet again a sign that the political left hasn't come to the realization of how terrible a candidate Hillary was nor how terrible a campaign she ran. It must be everyone else and everything else's fault.

Pitching just more of the same isn't going to improve their electoral results either. Haven't learned anything.

Now the same party will be known for 'guilty until proven innocent based on uncorroborated accusations', the politics of personal destruction, and an out right coordinated campaign to smear a good man, as if that's going to get them more votes. :lamo

 

[trouble13]

CA Pop: 40,000,000
Electoral votes: 55
727,273 people per electoral vote

WY pop: 550,000
Electoral votes: 3
183,333 people per electoral vote

727,273/183,333 = 3.97 more people per electoral vote in California than Wyoming.

From New Mexico (2:1) down to Vermont (4:1), 15 smaller states have similar advantages in the Electoral College. And, it's worse when we look at the Senate. A person living in North Dakota has over 50x more representation in the Senate than someone from California: 20,000,000 people per senator vs 370,000.

The 51 Senators approving Kavanaugh represent about 20% of the country; a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a president who received only 46% of the nation's vote.

Life's a bitch, ain't it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[Grokmaster]

CA Pop: 40,000,000
Electoral votes: 55
727,273 people per electoral vote

WY pop: 550,000
Electoral votes: 3
183,333 people per electoral vote

727,273/183,333 = 3.97 more people per electoral vote in California than Wyoming.

From New Mexico (2:1) down to Vermont (4:1), 15 smaller states have similar advantages in the Electoral College. And, it's worse when we look at the Senate. A person living in North Dakota has over 50x more representation in the Senate than someone from California: 20,000,000 people per senator vs 370,000.

The 51 Senators approving Kavanaugh represent about 20% of the country; a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a president who received only 46% of the nation's vote.

And the DP left ignorance of American civics is on display...AGAIN.

Electoral College votes are determined by the number of US Senators (always 2) + the number of representatives to the US House (which can change) not X electors per X population.

Try American Civics class; you clearly need one.

The Electoral College was DESGNED to prevent the coastal, urban sprawls from tyranny over the rest of the nation...THANK GOD.

 

[SmokethatGreen]

CA Pop: 40,000,000
Electoral votes: 55
727,273 people per electoral vote

WY pop: 550,000
Electoral votes: 3
183,333 people per electoral vote

727,273/183,333 = 3.97 more people per electoral vote in California than Wyoming.

From New Mexico (2:1) down to Vermont (4:1), 15 smaller states have similar advantages in the Electoral College. And, it's worse when we look at the Senate. A person living in North Dakota has over 50x more representation in the Senate than someone from California: 20,000,000 people per senator vs 370,000.

The 51 Senators approving Kavanaugh represent about 20% of the country; a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a president who received only 46% of the nation's vote.

Sounds like people from CA should be moving to WY.

 

[Crovax]

CA Pop: 40,000,000
Electoral votes: 55
727,273 people per electoral vote

WY pop: 550,000
Electoral votes: 3
183,333 people per electoral vote

727,273/183,333 = 3.97 more people per electoral vote in California than Wyoming.

From New Mexico (2:1) down to Vermont (4:1), 15 smaller states have similar advantages in the Electoral College. And, it's worse when we look at the Senate. A person living in North Dakota has over 50x more representation in the Senate than someone from California: 20,000,000 people per senator vs 370,000.

The 51 Senators approving Kavanaugh represent about 20% of the country; a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a president who received only 46% of the nation's vote.

QQ... poor baby

 

[Fletch]

And the DP left ignorance of American civics is on display...AGAIN.

Electoral College votes are determined by the number of US Senators (always 2) + the number of representatives to the US House (which can change) not X electors per X population.

Try American Civics class; you clearly need one.

The Electoral College was DESGNED to prevent the coastal, urban sprawls from tyranny over the rest of the nation...THANK GOD.

Exactly. We are a union of 50 states; hence the name, United States of America. Why would a state like Wyoming wish to be part of a union where they would be totally dominated by the will of another state like California?

 

[code1211]

CA Pop: 40,000,000
Electoral votes: 55
727,273 people per electoral vote

WY pop: 550,000
Electoral votes: 3
183,333 people per electoral vote

727,273/183,333 = 3.97 more people per electoral vote in California than Wyoming.

From New Mexico (2:1) down to Vermont (4:1), 15 smaller states have similar advantages in the Electoral College. And, it's worse when we look at the Senate. A person living in North Dakota has over 50x more representation in the Senate than someone from California: 20,000,000 people per senator vs 370,000.

The 51 Senators approving Kavanaugh represent about 20% of the country; a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a president who received only 46% of the nation's vote.

I know people from both states.

That ratio of influence seems comforting.

You've got my weekend off on the right foot!:thumbs:

 

[haymarket]

CA Pop: 40,000,000
Electoral votes: 55
727,273 people per electoral vote

WY pop: 550,000
Electoral votes: 3
183,333 people per electoral vote

727,273/183,333 = 3.97 more people per electoral vote in California than Wyoming.

From New Mexico (2:1) down to Vermont (4:1), 15 smaller states have similar advantages in the Electoral College. And, it's worse when we look at the Senate. A person living in North Dakota has over 50x more representation in the Senate than someone from California: 20,000,000 people per senator vs 370,000.

The 51 Senators approving Kavanaugh represent about 20% of the country; a SCOTUS nominee appointed by a president who received only 46% of the nation's vote.

Right wingers and Republicans simply do not care. The EC system benefits them and gives them a built in advantage and they will never give that up until they are on the losing end where the popular vote goes Republican but the EC goes Democratic.

 

[haymarket]

The Electoral College was DESGNED to prevent the coastal, urban sprawls from tyranny over the rest of the nation...THANK GOD.

Where are you getting this from?

 

[ludin]

The only way to get rid of the EC is to make an Amendment to the Constitution. That's not going to happen and despite all the bravado no State would give up its sovereignty for it. Each of the States that are advocating for it knows that an Amendment to the Constitution on getting rid of the EC is NOT going to happen. Which is why they are advocating for it. It's nothing more than a wriggling worm to keep the local voters happy and complacent.

Now, making it to where the EC votes are not winner takes all IS doable and does not give up any State power.

Actually not really. All it takes is a number of states to assign their EC's to the popular vote.
I consider this a horrible idea in the fact that you give up your voting rights to other people.
You no longer have a say in who is elected president.

states can assign their EC's as they want.
Right now though < than half the EC's are there.

All the states have to do is change how they assign their EC's.

If they want to be fair then they should adopt a distributive model with +1 to the winner.
So CA has 55 electorial votes

Clinton won so she would get 62% of the votes +1 for winning and trump would get the rest for this 31%.
The EC's would be split between the top 2 winners in the state.

 

[calamity]

Right wingers and Republicans simply do not care. The EC system benefits them and gives them a built in advantage and they will never give that up until they are on the losing end where the popular vote goes Republican but the EC goes Democratic.

True. Imagine Fox News' Hannity spewing if Hillary had won the EC by squeaking out victories in a few states while losing the popular vote. Hell, Trump would probably still be contesting the election.

The EC is archaic. It was established primarily to protect the slave states: agricultural states with mostly non-voting populations. A state like California which has 73X more people than Wyoming should not only have 18X more electoral votes than it.

 

[SmokethatGreen]

Nope. Bad idea. Let people from different backgrounds, professions, life in general have separated votes which is one reason the electoral vote is awesome. People in WY basically would have zero say and so would many other states.

 

[Grokmaster]

Right wingers and Republicans simply do not care. The EC system benefits them and gives them a built in advantage and they will never give that up until they are on the losing end where the popular vote goes Republican but the EC goes Democratic.

Leftwingers just do not care. Their craven need to for power over everyone else cannot be achieved via democratic process, so they seek to enact TYRANNY by New York, Illinois and California, over the rest of us.

 

[TobyOne]

As a Californian I can say that you don't want Californians having much power.

 

[Grokmaster]

As a Californian I can say that you don't want Californians having much power.

 

[ataraxia]

That's the other thing that really sucks about the EC system. Lose a state by a few hundred votes, lose all their EV's. That's just dumb. It's especially a problem for Republicans in solid Blue states and Dems in the solid Red ones. I can see how that would really discourage voting.

The electoral system does not need reform. It just needs to be tossed out. It’s a very odd system.

 

[Grokmaster]

The electoral system does not need reform. It just needs to be tossed out. It’s a very odd system.

Nonsense. It is a BRILLIANT system , designed by men wise enough to know that the coastal , urban sprawls should not be allowed to exercise tyranny over the rest of the states.