Order In The Court? Hardly, As Democrats Vow Revenge For Barrett Confirmation.

I think the mods deleted that one lol
Just saying people not wanting to live in a state shouldn’t give it extra electoral power

 

We should just fix the EC distribution so it’s fair.

 

Those states don't get "extra" electoral power. They get the same electoral power as every other state in the Senate, and less in the House. If you want a share of the electoral power those individual voters have, by virtue of being less numerous, over who that limited electoral power goes to, feel free to move there and claim your share.

 

Huh? Wyoming gets three votes. California has 55. California has 52 more votes than Wyoming.

Your math is wrong.

 

We do. Every ten years we take a census and make adjustments.

Cheers.

 

Okay. Again, that's what's on the books. I'm giving reasons for changing it, not odds on it occurring. How many states want what is irrelevant to my reasoning.

 

don't cry when dems raise the number of seats and seat the new judges with 50 votes in the Senate

 

Gotcha. Okay. I'm not in favor of changing it. I guess we can stop arguing, now.

 

Senate and House elections are decided by popular vote, not an electoral system based on counties. You're comparing two different types of elections.

 

No. They get extra based on population. One vote in Wyoming is worth a larger share of electoral votes than one vote in Florida. How’s that fair? Are Floridians less American than people in Wyoming?

 

Yeah, I figured that. I was expecting some reasoning beyond "can't be done" and some vague references to 10 states. Pardon me.

 

Electoral votes are allocated based on House and Senate seats.

 

It takes fewer people to equal one electoral vote in wyoming than it does in CA.

 

Yet it remains unequal. Why not make it equal?

 

So let’s star by fixing house distribution. A CA congressional district should be no larger than the smallest district in the nation.

 

They know this. If the shoe were on the other foot, they'd be repeating your words here.

 

Seems like a fair compromise that preserves the EC but makes it more fair

 

What you really want is for the HoR to change in size, every time there is a change to our population.

I'm not in favor of it. A House member's office (staff salaries and other costs,) is almost $2,000,000 each member. To get full equality in the way you seek, we'd need to add about 150 new representatives.

 

Which has nothing to do with the difference between congressional elections, which are based on the popular vote, and presidential elections, which are based on the electoral college.

The reasoning given for the EC seems to be agriculture, yet this can be applied to individual states, but we don't elect Senators using an electoral college. Why should a farmer in Peoria be ruled over by liberals in Chicago? Same argument. Why does it suit one but not the other?

 

The EC is a dinosaur. We've progressed quite a bit since the late 18th century. We did not begin with one person, one vote. We didn't even begin with one man, one vote. Where we are now makes the EC a useless remnant from a time when land ownership and voting rights were connected.

 

We can do it when we do the census adjustments. But yah it needs to change

 

Democrats should probably take care when making threats.

Threats, like elections, have consequences....

. "Yeah, I remember when the Czar used to threaten us, but that didn't turn out so well for him...."

 

How about eliminating the ability for Illegals to control our election too? CA gets extra representation due to leeches who don’t belong here and are breaking the law 24/7. Census needs to filter people out who can’t vote.

 

Okay. I'm laughing, but I'm not sure why. Trump is Stalin? Is that what you're saying?

 

What I'm saying is that threats have consequences. Take it at face value. Too bad for Czar Nicholas and his family that he didn't....