Electoral college***[W:862,1203]***

[haymarket]

Re: Electoral college

my post above should read FIFTY OR SIXTY YEARS.

The word OR got left out.

 

[help3434]

Re: Electoral college

not when those electors don't really apply to the population. that is not very logical.

The ratio is the ratio. Calling a ratio not very logical is not very logical.


yes we don't understand how you don't understand how are government is supposed to work and why. it is a large question that we have.
the whole purpose of the electoral vote is to eliminate the threat of the popular vote.

it is truly the only system where all votes are counted and all votes count.
where all states get a voice in who is president. in a popular vote that doesn't happen.

Tell that to the people who voted in Florida in 2000. You like the electoral college because you think it protects states rights.

 

[help3434]

Re: Electoral college

Then you don't have a problem with the electoral college you have an issue with how states divide up their electors. that is something you have to take up with your state.



again that is a problem with your state not the electoral system.

Most state governments aren't going to want to dilute the power of their state. That is why the majority of states have been winner take all since 1824, and why all states but two today are winner take all.

 

[help3434]

Re: Electoral college

so far you haven't. I am glad you have been paying attention.

If you read post 356 you will see that on the tenth I said" Okay I think I understand the source of confusion. I am not saying that the big states themselves, such as California, are under represented as some sort of abstract entity separate from its population. I am saying it is the population from those states that is under represented by electoral college, intentionally so, as you yourself say."

 

[ludin]

Re: Electoral college

The ratio is the ratio. Calling a ratio not very logical is not very logical.

no it is a distortion.

yes we don't understand how you don't understand how are government is supposed to work and why. it is a large question that we have.
the whole purpose of the electoral vote is to eliminate the threat of the popular vote.

I have explained how it works multiple times. I am correct in how our government operates. you still have not grasped this concept.
the electoral college was a compromise during the 1st constitution. the large populated northern states pressed for a popular vote.
the thinly populated southern states objected. the electoral college was a compromise of that came out of it.

it still allowed for a popular vote (within the state) IE the people that won the state would get that states electors based on the popular vote in that state.

Tell that to the people who voted in Florida in 2000. You like the electoral college because you think it protects states rights.

the votes in FL were counted at least 2 or 3 times over again.
all the votes were in.

That is just one aspect for the electoral college. the other is that why would someone in WY not get their vote counted because the majority of people
in CA, FL, TX, PA, NY voted the other way?

 

[ludin]

Re: Electoral college

Most state governments aren't going to want to dilute the power of their state. That is why the majority of states have been winner take all since 1824, and why all states but two today are winner take all.

again that is a problem with how your state defines electoral votes. that isn't an issue with the electoral college.
the state can decide how they divide up their electoral college anyway they want.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Electoral college

I have explained how it works multiple times. I am correct in how our government operates.

If you are so correct about our government, explain this to us

Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post


yes we don't understand how you don't understand how are government is supposed to work and why. it is a large question that we have.
the whole purpose of the electoral vote is to eliminate the threat of the popular vote.

So what exactly is this scary THREAT that is posed by popular vote? With all your self proclaimed knowledge of the government, this should be a piece of cake for you.

 

[jonny5]

Re: Electoral college

the system still works which is why the house has elections every 2 years.
the problem exists is that states get to carve out their districts and for years whoever controls the state these people have been carving out little dukedom's for themselves.
some states have eliminated this.

It doesnt work. The majority tyranizes the minority. Policy forces some states to control other states. Urban voters dominate rural voters. The midwest wants a pipeline, city voters a thousand miles away say no.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Re: Electoral college

no it is a distortion.



I have explained how it works multiple times. I am correct in how our government operates. you still have not grasped this concept.
the electoral college was a compromise during the 1st constitution. the large populated northern states pressed for a popular vote.
the thinly populated southern states objected. the electoral college was a compromise of that came out of it.

Ludin...the most populous state at the time of the ratification of the Constitution...was a southern state...Virginia. North Carolina and South Carolina both had populations about equal to that of New York State. Maryland, considered a southern state had a larger population than New York. New Jersey was a small population state.

I think you may have over-stated your case here.

 

[help3434]

Re: Electoral college

no it is a distortion.



I have explained how it works multiple times. I am correct in how our government operates. you still have not grasped this concept.
the electoral college was a compromise during the 1st constitution. the large populated northern states pressed for a popular vote.
the thinly populated southern states objected. the electoral college was a compromise of that came out of it.

I didn't say that you were not correct in how it operated. I said that you were incorrect in thinking that I don't understand.

it still allowed for a popular vote (within the state) IE the people that won the state would get that states electors based on the popular vote in that state.

That is not how most states determined their electors at first. That came latter.

That is just one aspect for the electoral college. the other is that why would someone in WY not get their vote counted because the majority of people
in CA, FL, TX, PA, NY voted the other way?

The votes in WY would be counted along with the minority votes in all the other states if the President was determined by popular vote.

 

[help3434]

Re: Electoral college

again that is a problem with how your state defines electoral votes. that isn't an issue with the electoral college.
the state can decide how they divide up their electoral college anyway they want.

The system incentivizes states to use a winner take all system. Similarly, a politician who wants reform to get money out of politics would foolish to handicap himself under the current system.

 

[help3434]

Re: Electoral college

no it is a distortion.

Showing the ratio is a not a distortion, it is a ratio. The ratio of the population to the total amount of electors is the ratio of the population to the total amount of electors.

 

[ludin]

Re: Electoral college

I didn't say that you were not correct in how it operated. I said that you were incorrect in thinking that I don't understand.

That is not how most states determined their electors at first. That came latter.

then you would drop the line of reasoning that you do but since you don't then I have to expect that you don't understand it.
no that is how states determined electors it was by the population of the state + 2 senators.

The votes in WY would be counted along with the minority votes in all the other states if the President was determined by popular vote.

not really because the majority of the US lives in those 5 states. in fact over 50% of the US population lives in those states.

 

[ludin]

Re: Electoral college

The system incentivizes states to use a winner take all system. Similarly, a politician who wants reform to get money out of politics would foolish to handicap himself under the current system.

again you are wrong. all the electoral college says is that this person will be president by having the majority of electoral votes.
it is in the constitution how the states divide up their electoral.

some states do it by percentage. the winner gets X% of the votes and the other person gets 1 or whatever the number is.

currently there are some states that have signed a petition that award all their electors to the winner of the popular vote.
I think they are doing their citizens a disservice but that is on them.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Electoral college

again you are wrong. all the electoral college says is that this person will be president by having the majority of electoral votes.
it is in the constitution how the states divide up their electoral.

some states do it by percentage. the winner gets X% of the votes and the other person gets 1 or whatever the number is.

currently there are some states that have signed a petition that award all their electors to the winner of the popular vote.
I think they are doing their citizens a disservice but that is on them.

Where is your explanation as to

1- how a Senator can represent a state without representing the people of that state? and
2- explain to us your comment that the popular vote is a THREAT to the USA?

Please do so.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Re: Electoral college

Showing the ratio is a not a distortion, it is a ratio. The ratio of the population to the total amount of electors is the ratio of the population to the total amount of electors.

Obviously that is correct, Help. And obviously, the people who live in large population states ARE underrepresented in the Electoral College compared with people who live in low population states...because of the way the electors are allocated.

Ludin is continuing to insist that the people who live in large population states are not underrepresented compared with people who live in low population states...

...and then explaining why they ARE underrepresented.

Amazing, but you run into that sort of absurdity often in Internet discussions.

 

[ludin]

Re: Electoral college

Showing the ratio is a not a distortion, it is a ratio. The ratio of the population to the total amount of electors is the ratio of the population to the total amount of electors.

when you are attempting to use a ratio that doesn't relate then yes it is a distortion.

not all electors are based on population which skews the ratio.
that is the fatal error that you don't seem to understand.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Electoral college

when you are attempting to use a ratio that doesn't relate then yes it is a distortion.

not all electors are based on population which skews the ratio.
that is the fatal error that you don't seem to understand.

Stop it. Stop it now and stop it the next time you want to write such inane nonsense.

What part of this don't you want to understand: we all understand the formula. Got that heavy statement of tremendous complexity Ludin? We all understand the formula.

We all understand how the formula is arrived at. Got that Ludin?

What we are saying is that the formula sucks since it rewards a vote from the smallest populated states with three times the electoral weight as a vote from a large state like New York or California. Got that Ludin?

So for heavens sake - STOP IT.

 

[help3434]

Re: Electoral college

then you would drop the line of reasoning that you do but since you don't then I have to expect that you don't understand it.
no that is how states determined electors it was by the population of the state + 2 senators.

I know that is how they are chosen. Is there a block in your brain preventing you from understanding that I know that is how they are chosen? The plus 2 for each state is WHY the smaller states have more electoral votes than is proportional for their population. If it were not for the plus 2 for each state they would not have more electoral votes than is proportional for their population.

not really because the majority of the US lives in those 5 states. in fact over 50% of the US population lives in those states.

But not everybody in those states votes the same way. If we get rid of the winner takes all by state system then the votes that went against the majority in those states would count.
As of 2014 the population of the five most populous states made up 37.09 of the US population. I am not sure were you are getting the over 50% number.

 

[help3434]

Re: Electoral college

when you are attempting to use a ratio that doesn't relate then yes it is a distortion.

not all electors are based on population which skews the ratio.
that is the fatal error that you don't seem to understand.

Relate to what? Don't try to say I am wrong when you don't even know what I am saying.

 

[help3434]

Re: Electoral college

again you are wrong. all the electoral college says is that this person will be president by having the majority of electoral votes.
it is in the constitution how the states divide up their electoral.

Do you know what an incentive is? I never said the system tells the states to use winner takes all, my point is the it ENCOURAGES that behavior. In most states the state legislative is mostly one party. The majority party in the state legislative doesn't want any of the electors in the Presidential election to go the candidate in the other party. Do you understand now?

some states do it by percentage. the winner gets X% of the votes and the other person gets 1 or whatever the number is.

currently there are some states that have signed a petition that award all their electors to the winner of the popular vote.
I think they are doing their citizens a disservice but that is on them.

Maine and Nebraska divided their electors by district, not percentage. In every other state it is winner take all. The Electoral College - Maine and Nebraska

 

[help3434]

Re: Electoral college

Stop it. Stop it now and stop it the next time you want to write such inane nonsense.

What part of this don't you want to understand: we all understand the formula. Got that heavy statement of tremendous complexity Ludin? We all understand the formula.

We all understand how the formula is arrived at. Got that Ludin?

What we are saying is that the formula sucks since it rewards a vote from the smallest populated states with three times the electoral weight as a vote from a large state like New York or California. Got that Ludin?

I agree that the smaller states have a larger person to elector ratio but I don't think that is why it sucks. The whole state by state with most states being winner take all is what I have a population with. But if you do have the vote by electoral college then the smaller states SHOULD have more electors than is proportional to their population because the choice of President has the potential to affect the sovereignty of each of the states.

 

[Excon]

Re: Electoral college

Every single person here - including myself - seems to understand perfectly what the Founders established over 225 years ago when the USA was a very very different country.

When you keep making the same fallacious argument, that is an abundantly clear indication that you obviously do not.

The Electors do not represent the population.

And nobody here - including myself - is suggesting any changes in that Congressional design and implementation.

Stop being untruthful.

The point many have made - including myself - is that this system of two centuries ago does not serve us well in the years of this century and for the 2016 election.

And yet is serves the purpose it was created for just fine, which means you are wrong.

I ask you again - and repeating the same vague textbook sentence DOES NOT answer it: how can a US Senator represent a state without representing the people of that state?

Your question is lame, especially given the knowledge that a Senator represents the State as a separate entity in the Union of States.
That is the only answer that needs be given.

And when you have answered the first question - then answer this one: why should we have a system today which rewards a voter in Wyoming or North Dakota with three times the Electoral College weight behind their vote than a voter in New York or California? Why is this desirable in the year 2016 election?

D'oh!
They don't. Your fallacious argument doesn't fly.

Two of those electors represent the State as a separate entity from the people.
That is the way it was designed to operate and it works just fine.
The State's interest is represented by it's Senators which may not be what the people want. Do you really not understand that?

In reality - IT CANNOT BE DONE. So for you or anyone else here to keep claiming that 'the Senate does not represent the people' is a childs catechism memorization that has words spewing forth with no actual intellectual sense behind them.

Wrong.
1. Senators were not designed to represent the State, not the people.
2. In reality every damn resident of a state could keel over dead and the State would still be a State.
3. Your argument is extremely lame given the fact tha t

I have been following the argument of the poster and that is not correct. The poster has NOT said that Congress is apportioned wrongly.

It is the Electoral College formula that the poster has criticized.

D'oh!
There you go making another false statement.
I never said the other poster made such an argument.

 

[Excon]

Re: Electoral college

Once again...the absurdity of saying it is wrong to say that the people who live in large population states are underrepresented in the EC...and then telling us why they are underrepresented.

None so blind as those who will not see!

You are deliberately telling an untruth.
Your argument is fallacious as the Electors do not represent the population as a whole.

The people who live in high population states ARE underrepresented in the Electoral College. There is no getting around that.

Wrong.
The number of the electors that represent the population is a fair as that number is a function of the system that Congress adopted for apportionment.

...the people who live in large population states like California, New York, or Texas...

...ARE underrepresented in the Electoral College.

Wrong.
They are represented fairly as the number of electors who represent population is a result of the equatable system of apportionment chosen by the Congress.

Obviously that is correct, Help. And obviously, the people who live in large population states ARE underrepresented in the Electoral College compared with people who live in low population states...because of the way the electors are allocated.

Wrong.
The electors who represent the population of a state are allotted based on a fair and equatable system of apportionment chosen by Congress.

Amazing, but you run into that sort of absurdity often in Internet discussions.

The only ones in this thread representing that absurdity are those lumping all the electors into one category of representing the population when they do not.

And just because that is they way they chose to allot a portion of electors in no way means they are meant to represent the population, especially as the State can choose how it's electors vote.

 

[Excon]

Re: Electoral college

I know that not all electors are based on population size. That is why the states's electoral vote is not exactly proportional to their population, especially the states with less than a million people. Durr... I love it when you try to tell me I am wrong for saying that the electoral vote is not proportional to population size, by telling me that not all the electors are based on population size. Wait, how am I wrong again?

How are you wrong?
D'oh!
Your argument based on population size is fallacious, as the total number of electors is not based on population size.
Failing to account for that makes your argument fallacious, invalid and illogical.

Because the only way to calculate the ratio of population to total electors is to count the total of electors. That is pretty obvious, no?

This is not rocket science here. I am talking about the total ratio here. I am not sure why you and the other guy seem incapable of understanding that.

That is an invalid argument as the total number of electors is not as function of the total number of the population.

That is what you are ignoring, it is why you are and will continue to be wrong.