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.
I'm going to reiterate the per capita spending is only one variable in a very complex calculation.
Getting back to NM which always tops these lists I've mentioned Sandia National lab.
Population of NM : 2 million
Sandia National lab Budget: 2.4 Billion
Los Alamos budget: 2.2 billion
Per capita spending in NM for these two facilities: $2300
Per capita spending if you moved them to California: $118
Just to add White Sands Missile range is another federal installation located there with a massive budget and there is some other smaller installations.
Don't forget Kirtland AFB, Holloman AFB, Cannon AFB, White Sands Test Lab, and the BIA. I've pointed this out before, but liberals are bad at math.
The slight bump in voting power given by the Electoral College is just that. It's slight. Tiny. Not very big. The small states can't win an election on their own. In fact, the 11 most populated states gets you to an even 270 -- so any candidate winning all 11 wins the election.
Translation: The high population states still dominate. Nobody can ever become POTUS without winning at least some of them.
Love it or hate it, the Electoral College is doing exactly what it was created to do in the first place: Give a voice to the tiny states. It's still not much of a voice, but at least it's something. Politicians care a lot more about what's going on in California than they do Wyoming, Vermont or North Dakota. The genius of our system is that the tiny states can't be completely ignored.
If we're talking about injustice against the popular vote, then the Senate is a far greater offense than the Electoral College. The 580,000 people of Wyoming wield just as much power via the Senate as the 38 million people of California. The real reason that the EC is getting all the press and not the Senate comes down to folks like Hillary Clinton and Al Gore winning the popular vote but losing the election. It offers up a clear focus for outrage.
At the end of the day, the margin of popular vote victory is always tiny when compared to the total vote. Clinton's lead in the popular vote presently stands at less than 2% of the total -- putting the 2016 election in third place for the margin of popular vote victory for the loser of a presidential election. Including 2016, there have only ever been five total instances where the winner of the popular vote did not win the election.
The people's votes should count because we run this country, not some ancient electoral college. So what is the reason for the popular vote not counting. Oh yeah, yada, yada, I have read it. Ancient, and we need to get into the times where the people matter.
The Electoral College was put in place to keep now IQ people like yourself away from complete control in this country just because you choose to live in a certain city or state. It's a brilliant system which was way ahead of it's time and designed to meet the needs of our nation for centuries.
They don't call it the United People of America, it's the United States of America for a reason.
Wont those red states be taking less if there are more jobs in them?
It would not surprise me if what makes those states takers, is welfare people who do not vote and if they did, would vote blue. Red voters want jobs and to contribute to their country, state and community.
That's all well and fine. But there shouldn't be winner take all states.
once again you FAIL at civics 101. the states decide how their electoral college votes re distributed, not the federal government. if the states chose a proportional distribution, then that is their prerogative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Democrats have won the popular vote six out of the last seven elections. They are not interested in the tyranny of the minority either.
so what? its easy when the most populous states vote for democrats. but do you really want those same most populous states telling us who the president should be? suppose trump won the popular vote, and hillary won the electoral vote, would you then be complaining that trump shuoold be president because he won the popular vote? no you wouldnt, you would be thanking the founders for setting up the electoral college in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
See, that's what's wrong with the electoral college.
California *is* more important than Vermont or whatever unpopulated red state you wish to pick. Spreading out those 100 votes equally among the states only makes sense if all the states are at least somewhat similar in population and economic output, but they're not. Dividing up votes based on arbitrary lines on a map is sheer lunacy.
kind of true, california is more important than vermont, and that is why california has 55 electoral votes to vermonts 4. the distribution of electoral votes is based on population distribution. and that is what is RIGHT about the electoral college.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
The slight bump in voting power given by the Electoral College is just that. It's slight. Tiny. Not very big. The small states can't win an election on their own. In fact, the 11 most populated states gets you to an even 270 -- so any candidate winning all 11 wins the election.
Translation: The high population states still dominate. Nobody can ever become POTUS without winning at least some of them.
Love it or hate it, the Electoral College is doing exactly what it was created to do in the first place: Give a voice to the tiny states. It's still not much of a voice, but at least it's something. Politicians care a lot more about what's going on in California than they do Wyoming, Vermont or North Dakota. The genius of our system is that the tiny states can't be completely ignored.
If we're talking about injustice against the popular vote, then the Senate is a far greater offense than the Electoral College. The 580,000 people of Wyoming wield just as much power via the Senate as the 38 million people of California. The real reason that the EC is getting all the press and not the Senate comes down to folks like Hillary Clinton and Al Gore winning the popular vote but losing the election. It offers up a clear focus for outrage.
At the end of the day, the margin of popular vote victory is always tiny when compared to the total vote. Clinton's lead in the popular vote presently stands at less than 2% of the total -- putting the 2016 election in third place for the margin of popular vote victory for the loser of a presidential election. Including 2016, there have only ever been five total instances where the winner of the popular vote did not win the election.
well said. however the hillary crowd is still going to complain about the electoral college until it benefits them.
I'm sorry but there is NO way to logically defend the Electoral College when it throws away 2.5 million votes.
it did throw away 2.5 million votes. those 2.5 million votes came from ONE STATE, california. why should one state have a say in who is president? the only reason you cant defend the electoral college is because it didnt support your candidate, if it did you would be praising the EC.
I'm sorry but there is NO way to logically defend the Electoral College when it throws away 2.5 million votes.
Always hilarious how liberals are like "hey, our state of California funds the country" when California is literally bankrupt. Liberal math! Up up and awaaaaaay!
So you are therefore for my plan for progressive voting? Meaning, the more an individual pays in taxes, the more votes they get? Thanks!
While I wouldn't mind, I think a lot of seniors would be outraged. Putting that aside, I would be fine if we also did 51 individual budgets so that each state paid not one penny more as a percentage than any other state. As it is we are not only seeing the tyranny of the minority, they they are benefiting from our dollars too. We have become so divided, it's likely states are going to be more autonomous as time goes on and both parties would likely be extremely happy with that.
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.
Ancient, and we need to get into the times where the people matter.
