Is it Time for the Electoral College to Go?

[Trajan]

But the electoral college doesn't DO anything!! why are you denying that? If you live in Montana, or Vermont,

what does the electoral college actually DO for you?

And answer in real material, tangible benefits, not just some meaningless theory.

You can't.

you never cease to amaze me....really... I am glad you're here man, you give me more spontaneous laughs than anyone here but sallow.....now....

lets see, an analogy that even you can understand.....I don't want to get wet or chance getting wet...sooooooooo;

I build a dam, it holds back the water, I am always always dry. BUT, if I remove the dam....I get wet....get it now?

IOW, you can't answer the question either.

The small population states get no help from the electoral college for the simple reasons that

1. the 'bonus' electoral votes aren't enough to help them

2. the small states don't vote as a bloc so they end up canceling each other out.

I just did answer it................. I cannot help it if you are too___________, to think like a mature adult and do some very simple critical thinking.

-just because the EC has not been the arbiter of an election often enough for you does not mean its absent would be good, its absence would have an effect downsteam that is NOT present OR verifiable NOW, because the EC is IN PLACE and has been...so far so good?

Ipso facto- you cannot use any elections so far to say see no it won't, because its mere presence in elections past, renders that 'experiment' meaningless. So saying hey there been no use or need of it, is meaningless. ( Skinner? hello)

-The absence of the EC- we can conjecture on what MIGHT be; It would change the the structure of how the election process takes place; from who announces to run, to campaigning , to nomination, to inauguration....

can you you absorb this?

 

[Ame®icano]

You sir, are an idiot... with the reasoning power of a star nosed mole

And at this point, I win the argument.

If you were making a point...

I have explained things before, even in this thread early on... very simple points.... which you simply ignore because of your preconceived notion of direct vote democracy in all aspects of government, which goes against the balance of power and for tyranny of the majority....

There is great reason for the balance of power, not just in having branches who check each other, but also in the way those branches are filled...

Only balance they accept is that they control all the power. If they don't they bring up fairness, social justice, racism, etc.

NYcarabineer, you can say you won the argument, in your head. He thrown an insult? As opposed to what argument? Only think you proved here are how much you don't know about our history and why are we Republic and not democracy. Or you just playing stupid and pulling our chains...

 

[Texanmike]

If electoral college votes were divided district by district vs.a winner take all (state) it is possible the Democrats would never win another national election.

This is the essence of conservatism, i.e., let's concoct some absurd election rules that magically let the smaller Republican party win over the larger Democratic party.

This is just disingenuous at best. You can't say that one party or the other is dominant. It goes in cycles. If you really think that one party or the other has a stranglehold then you are a moron. If not you are just throwing rhetoric out there in which case the discussion is better with you on the sidelines.

Mike

 

[NYcarbineer]

you never cease to amaze me....really... I am glad you're here man, you give me more spontaneous laughs than anyone here but sallow.....now....

lets see, an analogy that even you can understand.....I don't want to get wet or chance getting wet...sooooooooo;

I build a dam, it holds back the water, I am always always dry. BUT, if I remove the dam....I get wet....get it now?

IOW, you can't answer the question either.

The small population states get no help from the electoral college for the simple reasons that

1. the 'bonus' electoral votes aren't enough to help them

2. the small states don't vote as a bloc so they end up canceling each other out.

I just did answer it................. I cannot help it if you are too___________, to think like a mature adult and do some very simple critical thinking.

-just because the EC has not been the arbiter of an election often enough for you does not mean its absent would be good, its absence would have an effect downsteam that is NOT present OR verifiable NOW, because the EC is IN PLACE and has been...so far so good?

Ipso facto- you cannot use any elections so far to say see no it won't, because its mere presence in elections past, renders that 'experiment' meaningless. So saying hey there been no use or need of it, is meaningless. ( Skinner? hello)

-The absence of the EC- we can conjecture on what MIGHT be; It would change the the structure of how the election process takes place; from who announces to run, to campaigning , to nomination, to inauguration....

can you you absorb this?

It's bullshit. Everything you said.

Governors are to the states what the president is to the country. Governors are elected by direct popular vote. Is that the WRONG way to do it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You sir, are an idiot... with the reasoning power of a star nosed mole

Rhode Island has a smaller population than New Hampshire, and voted for Gore in 2000. As does and did Vermont, Delaware, and Maine.

So how did the electoral college help those small states in 2000?

I think you are replying so quickly that you are not allowing time to let things sink in.

Your preconceptions are interfering with your ability to digest new information.

I'm not being condescending, I honest don't think you are taking the time to process the information and answer your own question.

I've got some things to do...I'll come back to this thread in tonight and is you still need this explained, I'll explain it...but I imagine you won't.

When I know I'm right, your substanceless ridicule is a waste of your time. You keep saying the electoral college helps the small states, but you offer NO evidence that it does other than to make some fallacious example of New Hampshire.

The small states don't deserve any 'help' in the first place because all that would do is diminish the votes of PEOPLE who happen to live in large states.

Why should I be disenfranchised simply because of where I live?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ah.

Can we meet one of these "States". What do they look like?

Got a description?

Are you being obtuse? Seriously?

Mike

They simply do not get that the federal government only has its power because the states allow it to have that power

Then why not give each state ONE vote in the presidential election?

 

[Texanmike]

IOW, you can't answer the question either.

The small population states get no help from the electoral college for the simple reasons that

1. the 'bonus' electoral votes aren't enough to help them

2. the small states don't vote as a bloc so they end up canceling each other out.

I just did answer it................. I cannot help it if you are too___________, to think like a mature adult and do some very simple critical thinking.

-just because the EC has not been the arbiter of an election often enough for you does not mean its absent would be good, its absence would have an effect downsteam that is NOT present OR verifiable NOW, because the EC is IN PLACE and has been...so far so good?

Ipso facto- you cannot use any elections so far to say see no it won't, because its mere presence in elections past, renders that 'experiment' meaningless. So saying hey there been no use or need of it, is meaningless. ( Skinner? hello)

-The absence of the EC- we can conjecture on what MIGHT be; It would change the the structure of how the election process takes place; from who announces to run, to campaigning , to nomination, to inauguration....

can you you absorb this?

It's bullshit. Everything you said.

Governors are to the states what the president is to the country. Governors are elected by direct popular vote. Is that the WRONG way to do it?

Governors are elected however the States choose to elect them. They can do it with a series of coin tosses, it doesn't matter.

Also, the state is made up of people. The country is made up of states, there IS a difference. Giving the states representation, according to population, is almost like half of the calculation of the sentate with half of the calculation of the HoR. I don't know why its that objectionable.



Mike

 

[Trajan]

IOW, you can't answer the question either.

The small population states get no help from the electoral college for the simple reasons that

1. the 'bonus' electoral votes aren't enough to help them

2. the small states don't vote as a bloc so they end up canceling each other out.

I just did answer it................. I cannot help it if you are too___________, to think like a mature adult and do some very simple critical thinking.

-just because the EC has not been the arbiter of an election often enough for you does not mean its absent would be good, its absence would have an effect downsteam that is NOT present OR verifiable NOW, because the EC is IN PLACE and has been...so far so good?

Ipso facto- you cannot use any elections so far to say see no it won't, because its mere presence in elections past, renders that 'experiment' meaningless. So saying hey there been no use or need of it, is meaningless. ( Skinner? hello)

-The absence of the EC- we can conjecture on what MIGHT be; It would change the the structure of how the election process takes place; from who announces to run, to campaigning , to nomination, to inauguration....

can you you absorb this?

It's bullshit. Everything you said.

Governors are to the states what the president is to the country. Governors are elected by direct popular vote. Is that the WRONG way to do it?

you, are lost as in way out there....you really are dimwitted, I thought you were just being hard headed.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope. The college gives us a little more balance.

A pure democracy tramples the rights of the minorty

Long Post, so I'll beg the court's indulgence.

The constitution actually does have a bunch of mechanisms for the minority to be heard. That isn't the issue.

The EC is actually a hinderence.

First, it creates a situation where someone can be put into office after LOSING the election. It's happened 4 times in our history since the 12th Amendment was ratified, and every time, it has been some god-awful clusterfuck that just made things worse.

1824- John Qunicy Adams loses to Andrew Jackson, but the House selects Adams in what was called "The Corrupt Bargain", where Henry Clay is made Secretary of State in order to get his Congressional votes. (Some would call this a bribe!)

1876- Rutherford B. Hayes loses the popular vote, but a special commission is appointed to resolve a few Southern States' votes. Hayes agrees to end reconstruction and the occupation of the South (essentially giving up everything won in the Civil War) to get a one term presidency where he isn't really remembered for anything else.

1888- Okay, this one wasn't too bad, probably because it was two non-entities- Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison.

2000- George W. Bush wins in an election where his brother was counting the votes in the Key state. Yup. Nothing to see here. And then he got that confirmed by a court made up of justices his Daddy helped appoint. Yeah. That worked well. Everyone respected that result.

Second, it distorts democracy. Every election, unless it's a blow-out like 2004, the election comes down to a handful of "Swing States". Great if you live in a Swing State. You will get all sorts of attention lavished upon you. If you live in a Blue or Red state, no one gives a flying leap about how you vote.

For instance, I live in Illinois. I would like nothing better than to bounce Obama out of office so hard it hurts. But the fact is, Obama is from IL. No matter how bad things get for him, (and I think they will get very bad unless the GOP does something stupid) he's probably not going to be in danger of losing his home state.

Third, it makes it totally impossible for viable third parties to evolve. How many times have you heard an election described as the "lesser of two evils?" Or as the boys from South Park called it, "A choice between a douche and a turd"?

Why can't a third party evolve? because even if it got enough votes to win some states, a three way tie would just get tossed into the Congress, and Congress would pick the president based on who had the majority, even if Mr. Third Party got the most votes.

That's why we've never had more than two political parties that have lasted more than a few elections. The Federalists died out, the Whigs took their place. The Whigs died out, and the Republicans evolved. We've had the same two parties for 160 years. And usually, the candidate who runs hardest to the fringe wins, and the folks in the middle have to choose between a douche and a turd.

 

[sitarro]

gotta catch one first...

Getting the grill ready as we speak.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDKmocwltXk]Emu running - YouTube[/ame]

As fast as the Emu is, wolves are gang oriented, they would never try a one on one attack, they would get the shit beat out of them if they did. They would surround the Emu and nip at their heels and wear them down........typical chicken shit gang members.

 

[sitarro]

I just did answer it................. I cannot help it if you are too___________, to think like a mature adult and do some very simple critical thinking.

-just because the EC has not been the arbiter of an election often enough for you does not mean its absent would be good, its absence would have an effect downsteam that is NOT present OR verifiable NOW, because the EC is IN PLACE and has been...so far so good?

Ipso facto- you cannot use any elections so far to say see no it won't, because its mere presence in elections past, renders that 'experiment' meaningless. So saying hey there been no use or need of it, is meaningless. ( Skinner? hello)

-The absence of the EC- we can conjecture on what MIGHT be; It would change the the structure of how the election process takes place; from who announces to run, to campaigning , to nomination, to inauguration....

can you you absorb this?

It's bullshit. Everything you said.

Governors are to the states what the president is to the country. Governors are elected by direct popular vote. Is that the WRONG way to do it?

you, are lost as in way out there....you really are dimwitted, I thought you were just being hard headed.

Poor Woodcock, looks like you've been seen for who you are........ Trajan certainly can see what you are......

 

[Missourian]

Really? Looks to me, in that second map, like Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine all got overwhelmed

by the electoral college trumping the popular vote.

Look again and see how wrong you are!

Tiny little New Hampshire decided the 2000 election.

Those 4 electoral votes is what separated Bush 271 / Gore 266 from Gore 270 / Bush 267.

Just like I said...the electoral college protects the smaller less populous states...welcome to the Federal system.

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

Ok...here you go.


The 2000 Presidential Election.

Bush.............................Gore
--------------------------------

Montana 3.....................D.C. 2
North Dakota 3...............Vermont 3
South Dakota 3...............Delaware 3
Wyoming 3.....................Rhode Island 4
Alaska 3.........................Maine 4
Idaho 4..........................Hawaii 4
Nevada 4........................New Mexico 5
New Hampshire................Iowa 7
Utah 5...........................Oregon 7
Nebraska 5.....................Connecticut 8
West Virginia 5................Maryland 10
Kansas 6........................Minnesota 10
Arkansas 6......................Wisconsin 11
Alabama 7......................Washington 11
Arizona 8.......................Massachusetts 12
Colorado 8......................New Jersey 15
Oklahoma 8.....................Michigan 18
Kentucky 8.....................Illinois 22
South Carolina 8..............Pennsylvania 23
Mississippi 9....................New York 33
Louisiana 9.....................California 54
Missouri 11
Tennessee 11
Indiana 12
Georgia 13
Virginia 13
North Carolina 14
Ohio 21
Florida 25
Texas 32




Does this help make it more clear?

See how the Bush states are only up to 9 while the Gore states have climbed all the way to 33 and 54 electoral votes...

Now here is where it come right back to federalism and protecting the small states.

The Electoral College divides electoral votes by the number of U.S. Representatives plus Senators each state is allocated.

538 electoral votes, 100 for each Senator and 435 for the Representatives plus 3 for DC via the 23rd Amendment.


That's how the electoral college protects small less populous states from larger more populous states.

 

[Kuros]

Look again and see how wrong you are!

Tiny little New Hampshire decided the 2000 election.

Those 4 electoral votes is what separated Bush 271 / Gore 266 from Gore 270 / Bush 267.

Just like I said...the electoral college protects the smaller less populous states...welcome to the Federal system.

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

Ok...here you go.


The 2000 Presidential Election.

Bush.............................Gore
--------------------------------

Montana 3.....................D.C. 2
North Dakota 3...............Vermont 3
South Dakota 3...............Delaware 3
Wyoming 3.....................Rhode Island 4
Alaska 3.........................Maine 4
Idaho 4..........................Hawaii 4
Nevada 4........................New Mexico 5
New Hampshire................Iowa 7
Utah 5...........................Oregon 7
Nebraska 5.....................Connecticut 8
West Virginia 5................Maryland 10
Kansas 6........................Minnesota 10
Arkansas 6......................Wisconsin 11
Alabama 7......................Washington 11
Arizona 8.......................Massachusetts 12
Colorado 8......................New Jersey 15
Oklahoma 8.....................Michigan 18
Kentucky 8.....................Illinois 22
South Carolina 8..............Pennsylvania 23
Mississippi 9....................New York 33
Louisiana 9.....................California 54
Missouri 11
Tennessee 11
Indiana 12
Georgia 13
Virginia 13
North Carolina 14
Ohio 21
Florida 25
Texas 32




Does this help make it more clear?

See how the Bush states are only up to 9 while the Gore states have climbed all the way to 33 and 54 electoral votes...

Now here is where it come right back to federalism and protecting the small states.

The Electoral College divides electoral votes by the number of U.S. Representatives plus Senators each state is allocated.

538 electoral votes, 100 for each Senator and 435 for the Representatives plus 3 for DC via the 23rd Amendment.


That's how the electoral college protects small less populous states from larger more populous states.

The 2000 election had nothing to do with protecting small states. It was a close race and the votes in a large state, Florida, was mishandled. As the Floridians were trying to straighten it out, the Supreme Court interjected itself into Florida's sovereign affairs. The right-wing members of the court hypocritically ignored the core principle of Federalism, autonomy of state administration over intrastate matters, to mandate a Bush victory in a decision that was so bad that the court itself refused to allow it to have any weight as future precedent. And politics in this country has been poisoned ever since.

The tragedy of the Bush v. Gore election wasn't that the popular vote was ignored. It was that the Supreme Court tampered with Gore's electoral victory.

 

[Texanmike]

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

Ok...here you go.


The 2000 Presidential Election.

Bush.............................Gore
--------------------------------

Montana 3.....................D.C. 2
North Dakota 3...............Vermont 3
South Dakota 3...............Delaware 3
Wyoming 3.....................Rhode Island 4
Alaska 3.........................Maine 4
Idaho 4..........................Hawaii 4
Nevada 4........................New Mexico 5
New Hampshire................Iowa 7
Utah 5...........................Oregon 7
Nebraska 5.....................Connecticut 8
West Virginia 5................Maryland 10
Kansas 6........................Minnesota 10
Arkansas 6......................Wisconsin 11
Alabama 7......................Washington 11
Arizona 8.......................Massachusetts 12
Colorado 8......................New Jersey 15
Oklahoma 8.....................Michigan 18
Kentucky 8.....................Illinois 22
South Carolina 8..............Pennsylvania 23
Mississippi 9....................New York 33
Louisiana 9.....................California 54
Missouri 11
Tennessee 11
Indiana 12
Georgia 13
Virginia 13
North Carolina 14
Ohio 21
Florida 25
Texas 32




Does this help make it more clear?

See how the Bush states are only up to 9 while the Gore states have climbed all the way to 33 and 54 electoral votes...

Now here is where it come right back to federalism and protecting the small states.

The Electoral College divides electoral votes by the number of U.S. Representatives plus Senators each state is allocated.

538 electoral votes, 100 for each Senator and 435 for the Representatives plus 3 for DC via the 23rd Amendment.


That's how the electoral college protects small less populous states from larger more populous states.

The 2000 election had nothing to do with protecting small states. It was a close race and the votes in a large state, Florida, was mishandled. As the Floridians were trying to straighten it out, the Supreme Court interjected itself into Florida's sovereign affairs. The right-wing members of the court hypocritically ignored the core principle of Federalism, autonomy of state administration over intrastate matters, to mandate a Bush victory in a decision that was so bad that the court itself refused to allow it to have any weight as future precedent. And politics in this country has been poisoned ever since.

The tragedy of the Bush v. Gore election wasn't that the popular vote was ignored. It was that the Supreme Court tampered with Gore's electoral victory.

Its a stretch to say ever since then. Politics has been poisoned since Lincoln decided that the federal government is the only and is the supreme authority in the country.

I do agree (even though I voted for Bush) with the Supreme Court. There is no telling how it would have turned out. TBH I think that congress should have set a date and said "give us an answer by this date or forfeit your next electoral vote too."

Just my opinion though.

Mike

 

[Charles_Main]

Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.

It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.

California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.

Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?

Nope. The college gives us a little more balance.

A pure democracy tramples the rights of the minorty

Exactly.

 

[Kuros]

. . .

Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?

Nope. The college gives us a little more balance.

A pure democracy tramples the rights of the minorty

Exactly.

Eh. Nobody has proposed gutting any of the substantive or even procedural rights guaranteed by the US Constitution's Bill of Rights and later Amendments. We're talking about balance of powers and checks and balances issues.

 

[kyzr]

The morons who don't get the "Great Compromise" can GO. Nothing will change, the fucking system worked since 1776, with only occasional whining from sore losers. Better focus on gun control or abortion or fixing Medicare (Hint: Medicare will be insolvent in 2017)

 

[Trajan]

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

Ok...here you go.


The 2000 Presidential Election.

Bush.............................Gore
--------------------------------

Montana 3.....................D.C. 2
North Dakota 3...............Vermont 3
South Dakota 3...............Delaware 3
Wyoming 3.....................Rhode Island 4
Alaska 3.........................Maine 4
Idaho 4..........................Hawaii 4
Nevada 4........................New Mexico 5
New Hampshire................Iowa 7
Utah 5...........................Oregon 7
Nebraska 5.....................Connecticut 8
West Virginia 5................Maryland 10
Kansas 6........................Minnesota 10
Arkansas 6......................Wisconsin 11
Alabama 7......................Washington 11
Arizona 8.......................Massachusetts 12
Colorado 8......................New Jersey 15
Oklahoma 8.....................Michigan 18
Kentucky 8.....................Illinois 22
South Carolina 8..............Pennsylvania 23
Mississippi 9....................New York 33
Louisiana 9.....................California 54
Missouri 11
Tennessee 11
Indiana 12
Georgia 13
Virginia 13
North Carolina 14
Ohio 21
Florida 25
Texas 32




Does this help make it more clear?

See how the Bush states are only up to 9 while the Gore states have climbed all the way to 33 and 54 electoral votes...

Now here is where it come right back to federalism and protecting the small states.

The Electoral College divides electoral votes by the number of U.S. Representatives plus Senators each state is allocated.

538 electoral votes, 100 for each Senator and 435 for the Representatives plus 3 for DC via the 23rd Amendment.


That's how the electoral college protects small less populous states from larger more populous states.

The 2000 election had nothing to do with protecting small states. It was a close race and the votes in a large state, Florida, was mishandled. As the Floridians were trying to straighten it out, the Supreme Court interjected itself into Florida's sovereign affairs. The right-wing members of the court hypocritically ignored the core principle of Federalism, autonomy of state administration over intrastate matters, to mandate a Bush victory in a decision that was so bad that the court itself refused to allow it to have any weight as future precedent. And politics in this country has been poisoned ever since.

The tragedy of the Bush v. Gore election wasn't that the popular vote was ignored. It was that the Supreme Court tampered with Gore's electoral victory.

what, does your seriously misbegotten nonsense rant have to do with the topic?

 

[Missourian]

Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.

Ok...here you go.


The 2000 Presidential Election.

Bush.............................Gore
--------------------------------

Montana 3.....................D.C. 2
North Dakota 3...............Vermont 3
South Dakota 3...............Delaware 3
Wyoming 3.....................Rhode Island 4
Alaska 3.........................Maine 4
Idaho 4..........................Hawaii 4
Nevada 4........................New Mexico 5
New Hampshire................Iowa 7
Utah 5...........................Oregon 7
Nebraska 5.....................Connecticut 8
West Virginia 5................Maryland 10
Kansas 6........................Minnesota 10
Arkansas 6......................Wisconsin 11
Alabama 7......................Washington 11
Arizona 8.......................Massachusetts 12
Colorado 8......................New Jersey 15
Oklahoma 8.....................Michigan 18
Kentucky 8.....................Illinois 22
South Carolina 8..............Pennsylvania 23
Mississippi 9....................New York 33
Louisiana 9.....................California 54
Missouri 11
Tennessee 11
Indiana 12
Georgia 13
Virginia 13
North Carolina 14
Ohio 21
Florida 25
Texas 32




Does this help make it more clear?

See how the Bush states are only up to 9 while the Gore states have climbed all the way to 33 and 54 electoral votes...

Now here is where it come right back to federalism and protecting the small states.

The Electoral College divides electoral votes by the number of U.S. Representatives plus Senators each state is allocated.

538 electoral votes, 100 for each Senator and 435 for the Representatives plus 3 for DC via the 23rd Amendment.


That's how the electoral college protects small less populous states from larger more populous states.

The 2000 election had nothing to do with protecting small states. It was a close race and the votes in a large state, Florida, was mishandled. As the Floridians were trying to straighten it out, the Supreme Court interjected itself into Florida's sovereign affairs. The right-wing members of the court hypocritically ignored the core principle of Federalism, autonomy of state administration over intrastate matters, to mandate a Bush victory in a decision that was so bad that the court itself refused to allow it to have any weight as future precedent. And politics in this country has been poisoned ever since.

The tragedy of the Bush v. Gore election wasn't that the popular vote was ignored. It was that the Supreme Court tampered with Gore's electoral victory.

Except we are not talking about the Florida or the Supreme court.

It's irrelevant and a red herring when discussing the winning the electoral college but not the popular vote and why.

If Gore had won Florida, he would have won the electoral college.

But he didn't and wouldn't have won.

The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.

Florida election recount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Therefore it has no bearing on this discussion.

 

[Kuros]

Ok...here you go.


The 2000 Presidential Election.

Bush.............................Gore
--------------------------------

Montana 3.....................D.C. 2
North Dakota 3...............Vermont 3
South Dakota 3...............Delaware 3
Wyoming 3.....................Rhode Island 4
Alaska 3.........................Maine 4
Idaho 4..........................Hawaii 4
Nevada 4........................New Mexico 5
New Hampshire................Iowa 7
Utah 5...........................Oregon 7
Nebraska 5.....................Connecticut 8
West Virginia 5................Maryland 10
Kansas 6........................Minnesota 10
Arkansas 6......................Wisconsin 11
Alabama 7......................Washington 11
Arizona 8.......................Massachusetts 12
Colorado 8......................New Jersey 15
Oklahoma 8.....................Michigan 18
Kentucky 8.....................Illinois 22
South Carolina 8..............Pennsylvania 23
Mississippi 9....................New York 33
Louisiana 9.....................California 54
Missouri 11
Tennessee 11
Indiana 12
Georgia 13
Virginia 13
North Carolina 14
Ohio 21
Florida 25
Texas 32




Does this help make it more clear?

See how the Bush states are only up to 9 while the Gore states have climbed all the way to 33 and 54 electoral votes...

Now here is where it come right back to federalism and protecting the small states.

The Electoral College divides electoral votes by the number of U.S. Representatives plus Senators each state is allocated.

538 electoral votes, 100 for each Senator and 435 for the Representatives plus 3 for DC via the 23rd Amendment.


That's how the electoral college protects small less populous states from larger more populous states.

The 2000 election had nothing to do with protecting small states. It was a close race and the votes in a large state, Florida, was mishandled. As the Floridians were trying to straighten it out, the Supreme Court interjected itself into Florida's sovereign affairs. The right-wing members of the court hypocritically ignored the core principle of Federalism, autonomy of state administration over intrastate matters, to mandate a Bush victory in a decision that was so bad that the court itself refused to allow it to have any weight as future precedent. And politics in this country has been poisoned ever since.

The tragedy of the Bush v. Gore election wasn't that the popular vote was ignored. It was that the Supreme Court tampered with Gore's electoral victory.

what, does your seriously fact challenged rant have to do with the topic?

I'm not going to let that pass. I've put some work into studying Bush v. Gore.

Here's a relatively sympathetic yet critical review of the case.

Its relevant because the 2000 election was offered as an example where small states were protected from larger states. But the truth is otherwise. The court just bungled the law to put Bush in office. There's no broader balance of power issue, because Gore properly won the popular vote AND the electoral vote.