The electoral college needs to go, its broken and only serves to disenfranchise voters

What do you want me to say? I’m agreeing with you but you seem unable to accept it.

Strange, almost like you have some type of agenda
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Would you be accepting of an agreement between the left and the right to remove all non citizens from voter counts including complete immigration control in exchange for the citizens of the nation having equal weight in presidential elections and ending gerrymandering on a federal level?

 

With 60 Senate votes for the first year.

 

Repeated agreement with yourself is hilarious.

 

So if 1 person lived in each of the states minus Cali those ,49 deserve more say?

 

Yes

 

Me too!

I wish congress could do that as easily, we might actually make some meaningful changes.
Everyone gives up a little of what they want for the greater good of America.

 

That seems to make sense to some people, but likely only because they like the outcome. If the inverse was true they wouldn’t be so agreeable.

 

I don't know who is being ignored, in your example here. People with legitimate concerns are having their grievances addressed.

If you don't feel like you're being represented fairly in your jurisdiction, you can either leave or work to change who represents you.

I don't what you're speaking of and I don't understand what your point is. I've already pointed out that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but won in 04'.

"Their vote is worth a quarter of a vote." How did you arrive at the conclusion and how was such a conclusion calculated.

 

A voter in Wyoming has four times the proportional voting power in the presidential election that a voter in New York does.

 

How?

 

What percentage of the voting public takes money from government to survive? When that number reaches 50%, we are screwed as a country. That is your reason to avoid a national popular vote for president or anybody else.

 

Proportional results of the electoral college, the topic of this thread.

In 2016, in Wyoming every 142,741 votes equaled an electoral vote vs New York which required 519,075 votes to obtain a single electoral vote.

 

I am not sure how the electoral college would prevent that, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Furthermore, you realize red states are net takers of federal funds while blue states are net contributors, yes?

 

You're just spouting meaningless statistics; those numbers don't mean anything. It doesn't matter if 142,741 people vote in Wyoming on election day or only if only 1,471 people vote in Wyoming on election day. If a candidate A wins the most votes in Wyoming, they get only three electoral votes.

 

A large portion of America disagree with you that they are “meaningless statistics”, especially taxpayers who’s votes weigh a quarter of other taxpayers.

 

There are only two choices, either pass a Constitutional Amendment, which isn't going to happen, or do something like the NPV, which is constitutional. If enough states agree to use the popular vote, they can force a popular vote decision making an electoral college decision without a Constitutional Amendment. There is nothing unconstitutional about states making such agreements.

 

That is just an appeal to popularity, which I don't really care about. Statistics is a branch of mathematics and mathematics is all about what you can prove; not what you believe to be true. If you say that your vote is worth a quarter, of a single vote, prove it.

Otherwise, you're not saying anything meaningful.

 

My vote isn’t, some votes are, I have already proven it using data and metrics from the 2016 election. It takes almost four votes from citizens in New York to equal one vote in Wyoming.
I’m not sure what part you have having issue with.

 

Nonsense. One vote in Wyoming is just one vote for a candidate running for office. One vote in in New York is one vote for another (or the same) candidate running for office. Regardless of the number of votes either candidate has accumulated in either state, the winner will achieve the electoral votes they're supposed to achieve from either state. You telling me how much another person's vote is worth in terms of proportion is nothing more pure sophistry, and it's mathematically inaccurate.

It's more of your failure to grasp mathematical principles than your arguments.

 

It’s the entire principle behind the EC and the discussion we are having for the unequal weighting of votes. What do you believe is being discussed in this thread?

Are y’all feigning complete stupidity or is it actual?

Here is the first result from google:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

That’s all the effort I am willing to make with someone that either cannot grasp the subject or only has the mental fortitude to act like all the data and concerns is fake.

Either way, take care

 

No he doesn't he can only affect the vote in Wyoming. you can only affect the vote in CA. And the Demographics are changing as increasing numbers of people are fleeing the sinkhole that is California.

 

I realize that a great deal of federal spending is in violation of the 10th Amendment.

 

It's like talking to a wall.

 

Thank you for confirming you cannot cite the arguments for the electoral college that were valid 250 years ago but not today.
I accept your concession.