Are Snowflakes Stupid Enough To Pay $1200 A Ticket?

[Toddsterpatriot]

It makes me chuckle.

I'm glad you like disenfranchising certain parts of your society. Allows people to see what type of person you are.

You're not disenfranchised. No matter how much you whine.

Deprive (someone) of the right to vote.

disenfranchise - definition of disenfranchise in English | Oxford Dictionaries

From your own link:

Deprive (someone) of a right or privilege.

You are depriving Californians of the same rights as Alaskans...

No it's not. The electoral votes tied to a State's population represent, as much as can be done, the same amount of people whether it's the 33rd district in California or the 1st District in Texas. Try reading Wesbury v. Sanders (1962). The electoral votes that represent a State's EXISTENCE are equal to all states.

Totally untrue and easily disproved. Take out the two senatorial EC votes in each state and you'll find that (approx) 600,000 Alaskans get 1 EC vote 724,000 Californians get 1 EC. Don't know if you know too much about maths, but the way I figure it that leaves Californians at a clear disadvantage. Giving Californians an extra 14 EC votes would even it out for all parties having equal representation.

Don't know if you know too much about maths, but the way I figure it that leaves Californians at a clear disadvantage. Giving Californians an extra 14 EC votes would even it out for all parties having equal representation.

Why base your adjustments strictly on Alaska?
Of the 10 largest states by population, California has the highest representation ratio.

TX, 1 EC per 739,000
NY, 1 EC per 775,000
FL, 1 EC per 752,000
IL, 1 EC per 802,000
PA, 1 EC per 794,000
OH, 1 EC per 824,000
MI, 1 EC per 823,000
GA, 1 EC per 807,000
NC, 1 EC per 867,000

 

[Dr Grump]

[

Don't know if you know too much about maths, but the way I figure it that leaves Californians at a clear disadvantage. Giving Californians an extra 14 EC votes would even it out for all parties having equal representation.

Why base your adjustments strictly on Alaska?
Of the 10 largest states by population, California has the highest representation ratio.

TX, 1 EC per 739,000
NY, 1 EC per 775,000
FL, 1 EC per 752,000
IL, 1 EC per 802,000
PA, 1 EC per 794,000
OH, 1 EC per 824,000
MI, 1 EC per 823,000
GA, 1 EC per 807,000
NC, 1 EC per 867,000

Fine. Use those ones too. Give them representation too. I only used Alaska because it made it easier to illustrate my point. NC voters are really getting the short end of the stick.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

Don't know if you know too much about maths, but the way I figure it that leaves Californians at a clear disadvantage. Giving Californians an extra 14 EC votes would even it out for all parties having equal representation.

Why base your adjustments strictly on Alaska?
Of the 10 largest states by population, California has the highest representation ratio.

TX, 1 EC per 739,000
NY, 1 EC per 775,000
FL, 1 EC per 752,000
IL, 1 EC per 802,000
PA, 1 EC per 794,000
OH, 1 EC per 824,000
MI, 1 EC per 823,000
GA, 1 EC per 807,000
NC, 1 EC per 867,000

Fine. Use those ones too. Give them representation too. I only used Alaska because it made it easier to illustrate my point. NC voters are really getting the short end of the stick.

I only used Alaska because it made it easier to illustrate my point.

Of course, because if you used NC, California would lose EC votes.

 

[Dr Grump]

I only used Alaska because it made it easier to illustrate my point.

Of course, because if you used NC, California would lose EC votes.

I don't care. Make it equal for all. NC, California, Alaska, SD, Illinois...whoever.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I only used Alaska because it made it easier to illustrate my point.

Of course, because if you used NC, California would lose EC votes.

I don't care. Make it equal for all. NC, California, Alaska, SD, Illinois...whoever.

You can't make it equal for all, without massively increasing the number of seats in the House.

 

[Dr Grump]

You can't make it equal for all, without massively increasing the number of seats in the House.

Yep. Nothing wrong with that...

 

[EverCurious]

^ Other than the costs to do so, which is rather why they put a limit on it decades ago.

 

[Conservative65]

The electoral votes for Senators are not done on a proportional basis. They're done on a State existing. The members of Congress, specifically the House, do increase as a State's population increases. The number of electoral votes for a State based on it's Senators do not because those EVs are not tied to population. Never were.

I think we might be arguing different things. No, Congress has had 435 members since 1963 when it was reduced. Your population was approx 190 million. It is now about 325 million and you still have the same number of Congress critters. I don't know why you guys keep on mentioning the 2 Senatorial EVs. They are but a minuscule number of overall EVs during elections and isn't even my point.

No, the HOUSE has had 435 members

The electoral votes for Senators are not done on a proportional basis. They're done on a State existing. The members of Congress, specifically the House, do increase as a State's population increases. The number of electoral votes for a State based on it's Senators do not because those EVs are not tied to population. Never were.

I think we might be arguing different things. No, Congress has had 435 members since 1963 when it was reduced. Your population was approx 190 million. It is now about 325 million and you still have the same number of Congress critters. I don't know why you guys keep on mentioning the 2 Senatorial EVs. They are but a minuscule number of overall EVs during elections and isn't even my point.

The point you claim you're making isn't a valid point. You keep using those 2 Senate EV in your calculation. As a by product of the Supreme Court decision, Wesbury v. Sanders (1962), every EV that represents population represents as much as possible the same number of people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't make it equal for all, without massively increasing the number of seats in the House.

Yep. Nothing wrong with that...

The law says they can't.

 

[Dr Grump]

The point you claim you're making isn't a valid point. You keep using those 2 Senate EV in your calculation. As a by product of the Supreme Court decision, Wesbury v. Sanders (1962), every EV that represents population represents as much as possible the same number of people.

Well take them out then. My point still stays the same. I've already done that calculation in another post.

Who cares if I said Congress instead of house. Again, my point is still valid.

 

[Dr Grump]

You can't make it equal for all, without massively increasing the number of seats in the House.

Yep. Nothing wrong with that...

The law says they can't.

The law once had slavery and prohibition on its books. Laws can be changed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't make it equal for all, without massively increasing the number of seats in the House.

Yep. Nothing wrong with that...

The law says they can't.

The law once had slavery and prohibition on its books. Laws can be changed.

Yup. This one won't
We pay for enough useless congressmen, we don't need to support more.

 

[EverCurious]

Not to mention doing so would put the country into chaos because it is completely against the founding principles of this nation. The founding fathers were vehemently opposed to a straight democracy (aka mob rule), it's why they set it up as a republic in the first place. MANY states would have rejected the union (forming of the united states) if it was a straight democracy because the disparage between rural and urban has always existed, it's why we are considered sovereign states; rather than just chattel property of dense urban populations.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yup. This one won't
We pay for enough useless congressmen, we don't need to support more.

Ah yes, the generic dumping on politicians.....
Well, don't expect them to do a good job then.