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.
It's winner take all. The electors are tied to the number of representatives in Congress. The magic number is 270, or 270/538. The representatives are reapportioned based on the census. As the population grows in the largest states, the number of representatives shrinks to a minimum of 1 in the other states.
If the population shifts 12% to the current, large states away from the middle, a few states could have 270 among themselves.
California, Texas, New York, IL, - the big states - could have 270 based on current apportionment. In 22 years (two more deciannual censuses) - its a mathematical possibility.
Based on the last census, the larger states are losing population, if I recall correctly. Thus you take a 'traditional' electoral map and it starts to put more states in play that had previously been non-issue states. But, should be interesting because there is definitely population shifts going on right now and it shall be interesting to see what the next census shows.
To quote Shakespeare, "Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so." Your perception is negative, but millions of other Americans prefer to see moving forward as positive and healthy for the country. There is no more time for partisan politics over governance.
What happens when everyone moves forward? Who carries the load?
Can I borrow that "scary man go bye bye" for my status?
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.