Hey Ya'll

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

First the little states are already obscenely over represented in the Legislative branch and in the electoral college.

And...People count, not counties or square miles. Too bad the people don't count in the Legislative and the Electoral College.

To the extent that the Legislative branch appears to be less accountable to the People by the day, I agree with you.

As far as Electors, their numbers are actually reflective of the population. The number of Electors for each state equals the number of Senators and members of the House in each state's congressional delegation.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Yeh, he had the cabbage an asparagus vote all sewn up.

As usual, you are as deep as a bird bath.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

As usual, you are as deep as a bird bath.

How many votes does an acre of farmland have, dumbass?

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Perhaps, but neither could tell the future.

Zero's problem is a failure to understand the present.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

As far as Electors, their numbers are actually reflective of the population. The number of Electors for each state equals the number of Senators and members of the House in each state's congressional delegation.

Wrong, the number of Electors per state is not reflective of the population of each state.

Which makes the small states obscenely over represented in the Electiral College, you ignoramus.

The numbers of Electors in each state is not directly representative of the population you fucking ignoramus.

Thanks to how the Electoral College is structured, California has much less power in electing the next president than voters in less populous states.

For instance, Wyoming has three members of the Electoral College and about 590,000 residents. California has more than 39 million residents and 55 electors. This means if you vote in California on Election Day, you have approximately 3.5 times less power to elect electors than you would if you voted in Wyoming.

The Electoral College gives more voting power to citizens of smaller, typically less diverse, states.

Wyoming gets one Electoral College vote for every 196,000 residents. California gets one Electoral College vote for every 709,000 residents. How the fuck is this proportional representation by population? How is this fair to the residents of the State of California.

The small states are way over represented.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

So leave the Electoral College alone.

Oh, by the way. Trump won well over 90% of the counties and land area. Seems like it was actually 98% of the land area.

Grow your own food ?

No one can alter the EC since its enshrined in the constitution. So stop the idiotic scare mongering.

In the 90% land area, rocks don't get to vote, people do. But the way these occupants vote, perhaps they have rocks in their heads.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Wrong, the number of Electors per state is not reflective of the population of each state.

...you ignoramus.

.

Check your facts again genius. If the Electors each state has are equal to the number to the state's congressional delegation, and seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned by state according to the state's population, then the number of Electors each state has are also based on the state's population.

See? It's not that hard.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Check your facts again genius. If the Electors each state has are equal to the number to the state's congressional delegation, and seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned by state according to the state's population, then the number of Electors each state has are also based on the state's population.

See? It's not that hard.

It is though if one looks at EC votes.

To take the two extremes, California gets 55 electoral votes for 37.3 million people (2010 Census), or one electoral vote for approximately each 680,000 people. Wyoming receives 3 votes for its 568,000 people, or about one per 190,000. For more detail, see the 'Background' section of this article.

https://www.270towin.com/news/2017/0...n-235_442.html

Speaking of land area vs congressional districts, looked up NV since we now reside in Reno.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

Check your facts again genius. If the Electors each state has are equal to the number to the state's congressional delegation, and seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned by state according to the state's population, then the number of Electors each state has are also based on the state's population.

See? It's not that hard.

See? You're a dumbfucker.

If one state gets one Elector for every 196,000 residents and a other state gets one Elector for every 709,000 residents the Electors are not apportioned equally by population. And if the number US House seats for one state equals one seat for every 196,000 residents and another state gets one US House sest for every 709,000 residents, the US House seats are not apportioned equally by population.

Compares with States like Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska, the State of California is massively under represented in the Electiral College and in the US House of Representatives.

See? You're an imbecile.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

See? You're a dumbfucker.

If one state gets one Elector for every 196,000 residents and a other state gets one Elector for every 709,000 residents the Electors are not apportioned equally by population. And if the number US House seats for one state equals one seat for every 196,000 residents and another state gets one US House sest for every 709,000 residents, the US House seats are not apportioned equally by population.

Compares with States like Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska, the State of California is massively under represented in the Electiral College and in the US House of Representatives.

See? You're an imbecile.

Who are you calling a dumbf****r and an imbecile? The US Constitution or the US Census Bureau? One of the primary reasons that the Census is conducted every 10 years is to determine reapportionment in the House:

The Constitutional basis for conducting the decennial census is to reapportion the U.S. House of Representatives. Apportionment is the process of dividing the 435 memberships, or seats, in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states.

See? You absolutely have no clue.

Also, the math doesn't work the way you're illustrating in your post. You're using percentages when the method that's actually used is based on proportions. Representation in the House is also capped currently at 435, so there's a further wrinkle.

Population based on 2022 estimates -
CA population: 39,029,342
WY Population: 581,381
By proportion, Wyoming has .0149 (1.49%) of California's population.

Delegation of US House Members -
CA: 53
WY: 1
By proportion, Wyoming has .0189 (1.89%) House members (and by extension, Electors) versus California.

The correct way to determine if there's a disparity would be to perform the above calculation for all 50 states and determine if there's a statistically significant difference (significantly more or significantly less than the 0.04 difference between CA and Wyoming.

I'll leave that to you.