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.
Those were all prior to 1992, other than W Bush in 2004 as I noted in my post. Even if you want to go back to 1980, almost 40 years ago and arguably a different era, it's still under one half for the GOP.
What is so magical about 1992? Oh, that's right, if you go beyond that you'll find GOP won three times in a row, and it kills your argument.
The left have always hated federalism. I mean, how can you you have tyranny in the USA if federalism is aloud to exist? Well, you can't.
So the lunatic left, with help from their useful idiots, need to destroy federalism. Then create their all powerful, Utopian vision, of a supremely powerful centralized federal government.
Utopia on the left, is where the only purpose of the states is to carry out the dictates from the federal government, and purpose of the people is to shut up, obey, and do what they are told.
On Thursday, New Mexico became the 14th state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, joining California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia. The states, which represent a whopping 189 electoral votes, have agreed to shift their voting allocations once the group amasses 270 votes, the threshold needed to decide a presidential election.
Ohio is trying to be #15 and push it to 207 electoral votes.
Just shaking my head... but if that's what they want, oh well. No one seems to be making a large effort to stop it.
The whole idea of making every vote count through a popular election - actually makes your vote less relevant for the less populous states.
For a popular vote - the math says your vote count for 1 out of 130 million people (or however many vote).
Rhode Island had 450,000 vote in the 2016 election with 4 out of 538 actual electoral votes for president.
(1 vote divided by 450,000) x (4 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their vote effectiveness now is 1 out of 60.5 million votes. They just cut their influence in half by going to a popular vote. Congrats.
---------------------------
For California, about 14 million voted with 55 electoral votes.
(1 vote divided by 14 million) x (55 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 136,986,301 votes. With a popular vote - their influence will improve slightly.
---------------------------
For New York... 7.5 million voted with 29 electoral votes
(1 vote divided by 7.5 million) x (29 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 139,082,058. With a popular vote - their influence will improve slightly.
---------------------------
For Wyoming... 255,000 voted with 3 electoral votes.
(1 vote divided by 255,000) x (3 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 45.7 million. With a popular vote - their influence decrease greatly with a popular vote.
---------------------------
So just by my math... populous states win out with this. They have the majority of influence in the House, since it is based on population. Now you are giving them the presidency as well.
You will be sorry, for more reasons than math...
Mathguy - tell me if what I did with the math makes sense. I'm just asking... if anyone is going to complain about my math - have some substance. Don't just whine about it. We will see how it goes.
( my opinion )
It appears that the smaller less diversely populated conservative states will have if this passes less influence than the more diversely democratic populated states.
Democratic States like California and New York having more power ? ......................I smell a political fire starting.... dangerous!
It appears that the smaller less diversely populated conservative states will have if this passes less influence than the more diversely democratic populated states.
States like California and New York having more power ? ......................I smell danger.danger .danger.
Why is everyone ignoring that all States always have two Senators each. Imagine that, Wyoming having as much stroke as California or Texas.
Why is everyone ignoring that all States always have two Senators each. Imagine that, Wyoming having as much stroke as California or Texas.
Freakonomics had a podcast on this whole issue, it was very good.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
The Democrats are having a hissy fit and now are trying to destroy the electoral college vote as rule of law. If they had won, they would not want to be changing a thing. The electoral college benefited Trump this time.
The EC was written to maintain the ability of the slave states to control the nation in a presidential election. Half of our first 15 presidents were from Virginia which benefitted from adding population for congressional representation as well as EC delegates by counting slaves that could not vote and were considered property rather than people. If you count North Carolina and Tennessee, then 9 of the 15 were from slave holding states.
That's true, but an irrelevant detail of the issue.
The basic issue was how to address the discrepancies between numbers of registered voters between the states.
There were certainly reprehensible voter validation policies being practiced, but the basic issue was still how to address the discrepancies between numbers of registered voters between the states--and that issue remains.
How is it outdated? The electoral college was demanded and obtained by small population states in 1787 who feared being dominated by large population states (then mainly VA). Without it, they would not have ratified the constitution.
The same principle applies today. Without the EC, the small pop states of rural flyover country would be dominated by the east and west coast states.
It's outdated because at the time of its inception, & as a compromise to the Slaver States of the USA, the Three Fifths compromise was implemented concurrently. Without one, the other would not have been. The three-fifths ratio originated with an amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation.
Individual states were then, & still can, decide to divvy up their Electoral Votes.
This is evidenced by the 'split or proportional Electoral Votes in Maine & Nebraska'. These states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, & then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska).
Not the first time it's happened. I don't care whether an R or D takes it, the electoral college is outdated and should be changed.
If the notion of federalism is dead, and we are turning into a Democracy, just eliminate the US Senate too. Why should some little tiny insignificant state have two votes in the senate?
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.
