Reply to If you agree with the Electoral College, you agree with Slavery

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "If you agree with the Electoral College, you agree with Slavery"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

No. Wy with a population of 550000 gets 3 EC votes which is the minimum any state should get. But ND with a population of 750,000 also gets 3 EC votes. So they are allocated on a range. So it doesn't matter you win ND with about 200,000 more votes you still get only 3EC votes. Wait it gets much worse, CA gets only 55 EC votes despite having a population of 35Million.

The senate has 2 seats no matter the population of the state. Fine,, senate was designed so the small state gets a voice at the table. But then why should a DIRECT ELECTING presidential election also skew the vote to the small WY over CA? A CA vote is literally worthless compared to a WY vote. CA is the largest state in the union but is the most disenfranchised in the union.

[/quote]

What body decides on the allocation differentials between the states? How often is it realigned? Based on these numbers CA should have like 1,000 votes but honestly...I don't think 1 or 2 states should have all the power to decide our nation's presidency. People in North Dakota have just as much right to vote for a president and expect their vote to mean something as someone who lives in New York. Otherwise they're not part of a union but a tyranny.

Really what you're asking for cities to be the arbitrators of power. Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would decide our fates. That's a lot of power resting only in the wealthy elites, in those mayors, and in rule by density.[/quote]

No your calculation is wrong. Do the math again. CA will not have a thousand votes. CA should have about about 120 EC votes, if you eliminate all the rounding.

There is the senate that takes care of the voice for the small states. Every state has 2 senate seats regardless of the population. That was the design of the senate and nobody complains about it. Have you ever seen any protest that the senate is not representative?

But the Electoral college for presidency is also skewed to the small states? So you think there should be tyranny of the minority in the presidential election as well as in the senate? So the CA voter has no rights, even when contributing the most to the union?

I can't spoon feed the entire history of EC and american election evolution. Read up lil bit on your own. [/quote]

It was just an estimate and I still don't agree with your desire to do this.

[i]"So the CA voter has no rights, even when contributing the most to the union?"[/i]

Contributing the most what? People. That's a silly arbitrator of power.

Besides if this came to pass, it's more than likely California would be broken up into four states - I'm not sure you'd like it so much then. If we can't have companies that are too big to fail, entrusting half of our electoral process of the executive branch to one state is certainly wishful thinking.

Let it go.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics