Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Close to Pittsburgh, but NOT Pittsburgh ('cause I don't pay CoP taxes)
252 posts, read 236,427 times
Reputation: 350
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
CA does....they have 55 EC votes and Wyoming has 3....
Each state has 2 senators.....
Now flip that to the house: CA has 46 in the house and 1 for Wyoming....
If you're fine with that system, and if you're willing to accept that the current population of California is 39.56 million and the population of Wyoming is roughly 580,000, then I'm sure you'd have no problem with:
California gets 205 EC votes and Wyoming gets 3 (Apparently 192,500 people are worth 1 EC vote in -- and you can't make this up... Wyoming, "The Equality State").
California has 68 representatives to Wyoming's 1.
And, of course, they would each get two senators.
EDIT TO INCLUDE SOME ADDITIONAL MATH:
Wyoming's actual population is 5.8 million, since 10 hard-working farmers are worth 1 welfare mother and it's well known that everyone in California is a welfare mother while every resident of... lol... the Equality State... can only make it to the polls late at night after hauling feed, mending fences, branding steers, and bringing in the harvest. Because... you know... generalizations are based 105 percent in reality.
EFF IT -- ANOTHER EDIT BECAUSE MAKERS TRUMP TAKERS, RIGHT?:
GDP of Wyoming -- $35,726,000
GDP of California -- $2,448,000,000
(both 2015)
Last edited by JayDiFiore; 04-02-2019 at 12:09 PM..
Sure, i know what the rules are, I'm just saying they don't seem to be very fair or democratic in that respect.
If Democrat politicians really wanted to get rid of the Electoral College
1. Why didn't Dems vote to get rid of the EC when they had 60 votes in the Senate and a nice majority in the House, circa 2009-2010? 2. Why didn't Senator Boxer call on Hillary to say she would not accept the presidency unless it came with a popular vote?
Of course there is no mention of the effect of 3rd party candidates in their push. This "abolish" campaign is to keep MnM258, democrats and progressives wound tight for the purpose of votes. This "abolish" campaign will pass as it has many times before.
If you're fine with that system, and if you're willing to accept that the current population of California is 39.56 million and the population of Wyoming is roughly 580,000, then I'm sure you'd have no problem with:
California gets 205 EC votes and Wyoming gets 3 (Apparently 192,500 people are worth 1 EC vote in -- and you can't make this up... Wyoming, "The Equality State").
California has 68 representatives to Wyoming's 1.
And, of course, they would each get two senators.
Why would I be fine with that? NYC would have the ability to negate 10 states of peoples votes? Are you O.K. with that? Because that is what you want to happen....
you are almost right. The Founders fully intended to create a system that suppressed the mob. The founders wrote extensively about this. they understood that Direct Democracy was "Mob Rule" and they spoke about the fact that the meaning of "Mob Rule" was "he who controls the mob, RULES"
The founders were not gods they were fundamentally elitist compared to today. They were students of republics of the past which is why they were so scared of mob rule it might mean they would lose a bit of power!
Actually they care about everyone which is why they are pushing to help make everyone single voice count.
Wow, you can't be serious... "Care"?
What happens if a candidate didn't win a majority (more than 50%) and won only the plurality? Given the prevalence of third-party candidates, this is quite likely, as was the case with
Bill Clinton, who won only a plurality (43%) of the popular vote,
Hillary Clinton, who also won a plurality (48%) of the votes.
Would we then elect our president based on plurality, as opposed to a majority vote? This would lead to more problems.
The founders were not gods they were fundamentally elitist compared to today. They were students of republics of the past which is why they were so scared of mob rule it might mean they would lose a bit of power!
They understood the concentration of power and the result. Try doing some "serious" research about tyrants and how they gain and maintain power instead of parroting.. Worse, understand what they do to the people who do not comply with their demands... to keep a firm grip on their power.
What happens if a candidate didn't win a majority (more than 50%) and won only the plurality? Given the prevalence of third-party candidates, this is quite likely, as was the case with
Bill Clinton, who won only a plurality (43%) of the popular vote,
Hillary Clinton, who also won a plurality (48%) of the votes.
Would we then elect our president based on plurality, as opposed to a majority vote? This would lead to more problems.
Sorry, you are wrong. They understood the concentration of power and the wrath it caused. Try doing some research about tyrants and how they gain and maintain power. Worse, what they do to the people who do not comply with their demands.
The US is fundamentally about the people giving them more power is a good thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
