Abolish the electorial college?

So I'll put you in the "California picks the president," column.

 

. . . Obama won the EC and the popular vote. Trump, however, thought Obama had lost the popular vote and called for a revolution and the end of the EC.

 

Oops - I read the numbers wrong. I've updated my post with the correct number. We'd need 600 reps. to make it 100% equal.

 

Not sure where you got your data. Wyoming has about 580,000 people(2018 figures, 568K in 2010) with one vote in the House (and doing the math, that would be 532 not 1000) . They are the exception as they are the smallest state in population. Montana has about the worst--they have a population of 994K, and only one vote in the House (Rhode Island has a population of 1.055 million, and they have two votes in the House. They are actually the best off of the states). California has about 704K per House seat.

Please use accurate figures. I thought you liberals were all about facts and data

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/HouseAndElectors.phtml

Wrote this before you did your half retraction. Where did you make up that 280K number?

 

Actually, more like 532.

 

Happened to read this in this story....

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/26/trump-electoral-college-popular-vote-555148

While true, it leaves out the fact that only one Democrat "won" a majority of "popular vote", 1965-2007.

 

I updated my post with the correct figures a few minutes ago. We'd need 600 reps to make it 100% equal. Still, though, we are not the United PEOPLE, we are the United STATES. States choose the president, not the people. The people have never chosen the president. The people tell the state who they want.

 

I understand the reasoning for the EC. I also understand that the GOP REALLY likes the EC, because it gives them power.

What I don't understand is how it is fair that someone in Wyoming gets a vote that counts more than four times as much as someone in state NY. And that's only for presidential elections. In the Senate, it is even worse, someone from WY has 30-times the vote power than someone from NY. Overall, this means that the US is ruled by the small, often rural states, and the south. How is it fair to disenfranchise whole states, especially the most populous ones?

 

330,000,000 / 568,000 = 580.98

 

I'm not sure what the solution is but it is absurd for the citizens of a state like Wyoming with about 600K people to have equal representation in the Senate to the people of CA with about 40M. Likewise, the folks in WY are disproportionately represented in the electoral college. Going by the national popular vote seems like the logical remedy.

 

Wyoming get three votes. 2 Senator+ 1 Rep. How much less representation do you think is appropriate?

 

Wyoming get three votes. 2 Senator+ 1 Rep. How much less representation do you think is appropriate?

 

They don't.
They get a vote that counts exactly as much as everyone else in Wyoming.

 

Im not sure what your point is...trump says lots of stupid thigs and this is one of them. ..has nothing to do with the fact that electoral vote system makes perfect sense

 

Weird that none of the "but but not equal," crowd will tell me how much less representation Wyoming should have. They are all ready at the constitutional minimum of three. Who cares about the ratio? They only have three bleepin' votes out of 538. Sheesh. Complaining that they have way too much power with 0.558% of the vote.

 

They currently push the "majority" meme because they think they have it.
As soon as they don't, you'll see an about-face.

 

WY has 290,000 people per senator, NY almost 10 million per senator. I realize that you think this is fair, because it keeps the GOP in power. Don't get me wrong, I like WY, especially Yellowstone, but I don't think buffaloes need senators.

 

Wait...
You don't know why all 50 states have 2 senators each?

 

Good luck getting 2 Senators per state out of the constitution. Lol...

While not perfectly balanced, it's as close as you can get without having to split Congress Critters in half.

California gets 10% of the total votes with 12% of the population. Wyoming gets .5% of the vote with .2% of the population. It's as reasonably distributed as possible, unless you want to get rid of their representation entirely, which is disturbing if you love this country and what it stands for.

 

I was referring specifically to the electoral college. We can have a separate discussion about congress if you want, but that's not what the OP is about.

 

I was referring to the electoral college specifically. We can discuss congress, but that is a separate issue and not the one the OP was asking about.

 

Uhhh, what? It's the same number, dude. Each state gets the same number of electors as they have in Congress.

 

To be clear, you mean the same number of their total representation in Congress, both house and senate.

 

Yes. That's why I said Congress. Lol... If I meant one or the other, I would have said House or Senate.

Each state gets a minimum of three votes in Congress, as per the constitution. How much less representation would you like the smaller states to have?

 

There is 1 EC vote for every 754K citizens of CA, and 1 EC vote for every 193K citizens of WY.

That kind of scenario plays out with many low population, conservative states as opposed to more populated liberal states.

It simply isn't equitable.

If we are going to keep the EC the # of votes should be commensurate with each state's population.