Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Uhm, not really. 20%. But if you insist, then OK Wyoming has 20% more Rep clout than California.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is that what they told you in Whitewased History class?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
