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.
That’s isn’t fair, every state has two Senators, then the House members are based on population. So, only the House is proportioned by population and is awarded delegates based on the same formula as every state.In 1911 they passed a law to limit the House to 435 members. Sorry.
Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed. It makes little sense for the least populated states to have significantly more political power than the most populated states. A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.
And like I said...it's not a Constitutional issue.
Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed.
Well, you can either change the law that limits Reps, or change the Constitution that apportions EC votes.
Or you can keep whining how unfair it is that your drunken candidate was defeated.
A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.
By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.
68/53 = 1.28
That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.
You're not calculating this correctly. Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress. 55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.
Each voter in Wyoming has over 3.5 more voting power as each voter in California.
This article also discusses the disparity:
Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College. | HuffPost
Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress.
I agree, California only has 53 times the congressmen as Wyoming, they "should" have 68 congressmen.
68 + 2 = 70 EC votes.
55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.
Nope. 68 / 53 is only 1.28
You're forgetting that every state gets 2 senate seats, without regard to population.
You can't whine that California should have 136 seats in the Senate.
Well, you can, but we'll just point and laugh at your idiocy.
I just don't agree with this. If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3, which is 204 electoral college votes. What's fair is fair.
If that requires a change to the Constitution, then so be it.
I'm quite sure we'd be hearing the same thing from you conservatives had Hillary lost but got the most electoral votes.
Really? And what makes you "quite sure"? Because YOU are a selfish, tunnel-visioned clod who thinks right and wrong only apply when they suit you, and you assume everyone else is just like you?
No, the behavior of conservatives makes me quite sure had things been reversed the things I said would happen..
Really? What conservative "behavior" have you observed that makes you "quite sure" that we don't respect the Constitution? The REAL Constitution, that is, not the invented shit the left keeps trying to graft onto it.
Pretty much all of it.
No we wouldn't.If she got the most electoral votes, she wouldn't have lost.I'm quite sure we'd be hearing the same thing from you conservatives had Hillary lost but got the most electoral votes.
Yeah and had she got the most electoral votes, the fewest popular votes, we'd still be investigating the election, no president would be in office and you conservatives a would be crying abut how the Clintons stole the election.
That's a damn lie. You punks are still yelling lock her up.
The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.
Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.
Yo Dingle Berry,
elections are, and have alway being , a state matter
That's true but whether those representatives are democrats or republicans is strongly influenced by how districts are drawn. And who is responsible for drawing those district impartially? Politicians in the legislature.That’s isn’t fair, every state has two Senators, then the House members are based on population. So, only the House is proportioned by population and is awarded delegates based on the same formula as every state.Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed. It makes little sense for the least populated states to have significantly more political power than the most populated states. A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.
And like I said...it's not a Constitutional issue.
Well, golly....I guess laws were never meant to be changed.
Well, you can either change the law that limits Reps, or change the Constitution that apportions EC votes.
Or you can keep whining how unfair it is that your drunken candidate was defeated.
A 2 to 1 voting ratio, maybe I can live with. Not over 3 to 1, like Wyoming vs California.
By population, California would have 68 times the congressmen Wyoming has.
They only have 53 times.
68/53 = 1.28
That's a ratio much lower than the 2 to 1 you said you could live with.
It's a math issue.
You're not calculating this correctly. Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress. 55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.
Each voter in Wyoming has over 3.5 more voting power as each voter in California.
This article also discusses the disparity:
Voters In Wyoming Have 3.6 Times The Voting Power That I Have. It's Time To End The Electoral College. | HuffPost
Yes, California does have 68 times the population of Wyoming. But they have nowhere near 68 times as much representation in Congress.
I agree, California only has 53 times the congressmen as Wyoming, they "should" have 68 congressmen.
68 + 2 = 70 EC votes.
55 / 3 = 18. That means California currently only has 18 times more representation in Congress than Wyoming. Compare the 68 times disparity vs 18 times disparity: 68 / 18 = 3.7.
Nope. 68 / 53 is only 1.28
You're forgetting that every state gets 2 senate seats, without regard to population.
You can't whine that California should have 136 seats in the Senate.
Well, you can, but we'll just point and laugh at your idiocy.
I just don't agree with this. If Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, then California should have 68 x 3, which is 204 electoral college votes. What's fair is fair.
If that requires a change to the Constitution, then so be it.
Yo Dingle Berry,
elections are, and have alway being , a state matter
Elections have been run by the states, but the date is set by congress, and the results are judged by congress, and any dispute is resolved by congress.
That's true but whether those representatives are democrats or republicans is strongly influenced by how districts are drawn. And who is responsible for drawing those district impartially? Politicians in the legislature.
Don't forget that before the so-called 17A , senators were elected by the states.
Although there is really no fair way to draw districts, we should either have people that are either more impartial drawing them or there should be more equal representation of the parties responsible for the effort. Unfortunately today, whichever party controls the goverment at the time of redistricting will certainly attempt to draw districts to insure that their party stays in power.That's true but whether those representatives are democrats or republicans is strongly influenced by how districts are drawn. And who is responsible for drawing those district impartially? Politicians in the legislature.
Hence why the PA supreme court overturned the gerrymandered republican districts, such as the PA-18.
Don't forget that before the so-called 17A , senators were elected by the states.
Don't you mean selected by the states?
The people had no direct say over who their senator would be. That was dsecided in the smoke filled back rooms in the middle of the night.
You're claiming the Constitutional convention was a "smoke filled back room?" The original system worked far better than the one we have now.Don't forget that before the so-called 17A , senators were elected by the states.
Don't you mean selected by the states?
The people had no direct say over who their senator would be. That was dsecided in the smoke filled back rooms in the middle of the night.
Don't forget that before the so-called 17A , senators were elected by the states.
Don't you mean selected by the states?
The people had no direct say over who their senator would be. That was dsecided in the smoke filled back rooms in the middle of the night.
The Founding Fathers knew that Liberty was best protected by PREVENTING the Concentration of power.
By providing the states control of the Senate the states were sharing equal power.
The people could elect the members of the House of Representatives.
.
NOPE you retard. Electoral votes are based on Senate and House per State. The Congress determines how many people make up an representatives district with the exception that ANY State will get one no matter what the population. Those States with one representative have fewer people that are normal for representative districts but are protected BY THE CONSTITUTION.The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.
Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.
Interesting. One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California. Wyoming has a population of about 580,000 and is worth 3 electoral college votes. That is 1 electoral college vote for every 193,000 people.
California has a population of 39.5 million, which is 68 times more than Wyoming. This means that California should have around 200 electoral college votes, if using the same ratio as Wyoming: 68 x 3 electoral votes = 204. Instead, California only has 55 electoral college votes.
This is completely unfair and the game is rigged to give Repubs a fighting chance in every Presidential election. If California was worth 200 electoral college votes like it should be, then Repubs would never have a chance in hell of winning a Presidential election ever again.
One of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California.
That's a feature, not a bug.
This is completely unfair
To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate.
And then you only need to get 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.
You'd better get to work.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
Look we all know you are to STUPID to breed but the Constitution is clear on the issue of who gets representatOne of the biggest problems with the electoral college is that it's rigged against highly populated states such as California.
That's a feature, not a bug.
This is completely unfair
To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate.
And then you only need to get 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.
You'd better get to work.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a citizen in a small state like Wyoming has 3 times the voting power as a citizen in a large state like California. Absolutely nothing.
That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
Another left wing butt hurt nutter, if you don’t like the laws, don’t complain and cry, do something to change it. Seriously, you can’t be that dumb.
Dummy, read my previous post. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants more voting power to small states vs large states. (except in the Senate)
Therefore, there is nothing to change, idiot.
There is NO debate retard. The Constitution states that EVERY State will have 2 Senators and at LEAST one Representative and left to Congress to determine the Number of people per district for the Representative. Wyoming has only one Representative per the rules of the Constitution and Congress. California has as many as it does due to the same rules enshrined in the Constitution and the power of the Congress.Another left wing butt hurt nutter, if you don’t like the laws, don’t complain and cry, do something to change it. Seriously, you can’t be that dumb.
Dummy, read my previous post. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants more voting power to small states vs large states. (except in the Senate)
Therefore, there is nothing to change, idiot.
Yeah, there is, California doesn’t get 200 Electoral College, write your Congressman or sue the government then you can get you 200 votes, until then nothing will change and you call me an idiot? Lol!
That doesn't require a change in law, dumb ass. It should already be happening.
And you called me names first, fucktard.
Again, instead of crying and getting your panties in a wad on a message board, sue the government for real change, if they are violating the Constitution then sue them to make them follow the Constitution. Until the. You are just another poor snowflake that has nothing.
Didn't say that either, dipshit. You did. I'm simply pointing out that California should be worth about 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's electoral college representation.
You lost the debate and now you are trying to change the subject with some other bullshit distraction.
Yes it is you see RETARD the Constitution leaves to Congress the decision on how many people will be in each district.That has nothing to do with the Constitution, genius.
Ummmm.....
Article II
Section 1
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states? Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
And where does it say in there that small states should have over 3 times more voting power in the House or Electoral College than large states?
I know you're really bad at math, but Wyoming's 3 EC votes is not 3 times California's 55 EC votes.
Again, California should have 200 electoral college votes, based on Wyoming's current electoral college representation.
Not according to the Constitution. Sorry.
You simply don't get it, goober. You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios. Re-read my first post. And the Constitution does not address this. Sorry to keep pointing this out to you.
You obviously don't understand the concept of ratios.
55:3, I understand ratios just fine.
You obviously can't read.
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
Yes, and California should have about 200 representatives in the House. Again, this is not a Constitutional issue.
That's typical. It seems ever president now days rides into office with a long domestic agenda. However within one year in office the new president discovers he is knee deep in foreign affairs that he is unprepared to deal with and can't turn away from. This is why American foreign policy is considered laughable and manage by idiots. I fault the American people for this because they have a complete misconception of how important what goes on out the country is to what happens in the country.I voted for Trump, and it had nothing to do with Russians, everything to do with MEXICANS. Illegals aliens, from MEXICO, and those that employ them at the expense of POOR Americans. Wrap your mind around that. You might not understand the inertia behind our resentment. Colluding with foreigners and sanctuary cities, above the will of the people. We didn't ask for it. It just sorta happened. Now, I am more concerned with that kind of collusion. Hiring illegals at the expense of poor Americans, that's real and THAT is a bigger issue.
Well, you got me there...anyone who voted for Trump is stupid.Those weren't dems...those were people like me who vote independently. Do you remember when California went red several times. Resgan was governor there because of independent oridinary people.Wtf????Dems didn't vote for. Trump.TRUMP could still be impeached if he was party to collusion with a hostile nation to gain the presidency.. But .I expect that charges of collusion would not loosen the Republican grip on the White House. Even though trickery by a foreign entity was used to influence voters ensconced in critical electoral districts and or] cannot be reversed. .
.
]
Even though trickery by a foreign entity was used to influence voters
How many Dems were dumb enough to be fooled by a few thousand dollars of Facebook ads?
Wtf????Dems didn't vote for. Trump.
Sure they did, that's why Trump won in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
It wasn't stupid Dems tricked by a few thousand dollars of Facebook ads, it was stupid independents?
