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.
That was the deal that founded the country. The smaller colonies were not going to be dictated to by the bigger ones. If that was insisted upon, the US as we know it would have fractured in the 1780s-90s.
The same situation exists today. Half the population of the country is in the ten biggest states (and even in those states squashed into a few major metro areas.) The other forty states are not going to be dictated to by them, and the constitution prevents that from happening. Given that the smaller states would have to voluntarily give up that power, it's never going to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King
Sorry, Mr. Ganz. The Constitution doles out electoral votes to the extreme advantage of empty states...no state gets less than 3. So each voter in empty Wyoming, Montana, or the Dakotas, de facto, has 4 times the influence of a voter in California.
So the problem lies not with how the states choose electors, but rather how MANY they get to choose.
And this unfair electoral system is very much part and parcel of the Constitution and the so called "founding fathers."
Sorry, Mr. Ganz. The Constitution doles out electoral votes to the extreme advantage of empty states...no state gets less than 3. So each voter in empty Wyoming, Montana, or the Dakotas, de facto, has 4 times the influence of a voter in California.
So the problem lies not with how the states choose electors, but rather how MANY they get to choose.
And this unfair electoral system is very much part and parcel of the Constitution and the so called "founding fathers."
But here's the rub.
Look at the top 5 electoral vote states in 1900 compared with 2016.
1900
NY - 36
PA - 32
IL - 24
OH - 23
MS - 17
In 1900, Florida had 5 electoral votes. California had 9. I guess there were pretty "empty", right?
2016
CA - 55
TX - 38
FL - 29
NY - 29
IL - 20
This is what's genius about the electoral college. Only 2 of the states in the top 5 in 1900 were also in the top 5 in 2016. As states grow, they get more representation, and as they shrink proportionally (like NY) they get less. But everyone gets at least some say.
If in the next 100 years there is an additional population shift and the top 5 will include AZ, NM and WA, then the electoral votes will change yet again.
In the case of a purely popular vote the smallest states will get totally ignored, and all of the campaigning will be in CA, TX, FL and NY, with some partisan campaigning in a handful of more states. The "flyover" states will get no visits and no input into the process.
The Constitution doles out electoral votes to the extreme advantage of empty states...no state gets less than 3. So each voter in empty Wyoming, Montana, or the Dakotas, de facto, has 4 times the influence of a voter in California.
I've lived in California for over 30 years, and I'm not complaining. As a Californian (and a native New Yorker) I like the Electoral College just fine.
Sorry, Mr. Ganz. The Constitution doles out electoral votes to the extreme advantage of empty states...no state gets less than 3. So each voter in empty Wyoming, Montana, or the Dakotas, de facto, has 4 times the influence of a voter in California.
System is working as intended, hysterical concentrations of left wing obsessive compulsive crazies in coastal cities cannot exert undue influence on 75% of the other states
One man one vote should mean something, in the U.S. it does not. The number of votes you are worth should not be geographically determined.
Name one country that does this.
In the Westminster system (UK, Canada, Australia, etc.) you don't even get to have a say in electing the head of the government. You only get to pick your local member of parliament.
If state income is falling, it is not because the rich "cannot be taxed MORE" but rather that they aren't being taxed ENOUGH.
New York has pushed through income tax cut after income tax cut and consistently cut revenue. (And the Laughter Curve still remains laughable.) Double the top marginal rate over $2 Milliom from 8.8% rate to 18% and forget the nonsense taxes.
If state income is falling, it is not because the rich "cannot be taxed MORE" but rather that they aren't being taxed ENOUGH.
New York has pushed through income tax cut after income tax cut and consistently cut revenue. (And the Laughter Curve still remains laughable.) Double the top marginal rate over $2 Milliom from 8.8% rate to 18% and forget the nonsense taxes.
That by itself in regards to state income revenue from state income taxes does not seem like a reasonable answer. The US is one large common market and individuals can change their domiciles. Certainly the moving to another state process itself and the different factors that go into making that decision is not easy, but it's also not insurmountably hard. If you make a state tax system that is dramatically different from that of other states, then you will likely see a massive shift in people.
For what you're asking for, there would need to be a shift in at least two things:
- A large shift in the tax system on the federal level rather than the state level
- A more equitable system of federal expenditure such as having the ratio of federal tax receipt to federal expenditure per state (or perhaps even municipality) rests within a certain band of each other
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.
