US population and electorial votes

[Salty]

Some interesting info about US electons.

From the link:

"The top nine states in population contain slightly more than half of the total population. The twenty-five lowest-population states contain less than one-sixth of the total population."

 

[Jerome]

From the census bureau link in footnote 1:

The Census Bureau does not ask about legal (migrant) status of respondents in any of its survey and census programs. . . . we expect that unauthorized migrants were included . . .

So, illegal aliens count in the reapportionment of House seats?
Interesting.

 

[Salty]

From the census bureau link in footnote 1:



So, illegal aliens count in the reapportionment of House seats?
Interesting.

Scary isn't it! :tear:

From Jeromes link: "The Census Bureau does not ask about legal (migrant) status of respondents in any of its survey and census programs. As examples, in the decennial census, the American Community Survey, and Current Population Survey as there is no legislative mandate to collect this information"

If that is the case, then why is there a ten page form to fill out? All those pesky questions

 

[Twizzler]

That's ELECTORAL College...

 

[alatide]

This article shows how blatantly unfair the Electoral College system is. In large states like New York, California, and Texas, there are 600,000 to over 700,000 residents per electoral vote. In small states like Wyoming, Vermontm and North Dakota, there are about 200,000 residents per electoral vote.

This means that a person's vote is vote more than 3 times as much in Wyoming as it is in New York. Whatever happened to the idea of one man/one vote?

 

[Jerome]

U.S. House:
Montana's Denny Rehberg represents nearly a million residents.
Wyoming's Cynthia Lummis represents about half a million residents.

 

[Salty]

This means that a person's vote is vote more than 3 times as much in Wyoming as it is in New York. Whatever happened to the idea of one man/one vote?

The Constitution was written to give States or Commonwealths a voice in the govt. Only the House of Representatives was determined to be one man-one vote. In fact, the Senate is not one man-one vote

From another point of view, 11 States could elect a President - Calif, TX, NY, Fla, Ill, Pa, Oh, Mi, Ga, NC, and NJ. Theoretically, if each of those 11 States
a candidate won by simply one vote, and totally bomb the other 40; would you consider that fair?

 

[alatide]

The Constitution was written to give States or Commonwealths a voice in the govt. Only the House of Represenatives was determined to be one man-one vote. In fact, the Senate is not one man-one vote

I'm aware that the representation in the House and Senate is designed to balance each other. Here, I'm talking specifically about the election of the President.

 

[Revmitchell]

The Constitution was written to give States or Commonwealths a voice in the govt. Only the House of Representatives was determined to be one man-one vote. In fact, the Senate is not one man-one vote

From another point of view, 11 States could elect a President - Calif, TX, NY, Fla, Ill, Pa, Oh, Mi, Ga, NC, and NJ. Theoretically, if each of those 11 States
a candidate won by simply one vote, and totally bomb the other 40; would you consider that fair?

Troll Feeder

 

[Salty]

Troll Feeder

I'm a troll? :saint:

 

[billwald]

The purpose and design of this system is to give the smaller populated a better chance to have their opinions heard. If not for this system, Chicago, New York, LA, the Bay area, and Dallas Ft Worth would elect the president and co one would what N & S Dak, Wyoming, Nevada . . . cared about anything.




Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.














​

 

[alatide]

The purpose and design of this system is to give the smaller populated a better chance to have their opinions heard. If not for this system, Chicago, New York, LA, the Bay area, and Dallas Ft Worth would elect the president and co one would what N & S Dak, Wyoming, Nevada . . . cared about anything.




Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.














​

Actually, the original reason for the Electoral College was to allow voters to vote for local electors that they were familiar with to cast their proxy vote for president rather than for a presidential candidate they knew very little about. This was a good idea during the early days of America (say until 1900) but now isn't worthwhile due to mass communications.

The idea that the vote of voters in small states is worth 3 times the vote of voters in large states just isn't very democratic, Besides, moving away from using the electoral collage would reduce the chances of voting fraud since a candidate could no longer win by manipulating the count in one or two states as Bush did in 2000.

Another reason for changing the way we elect a president is that in the past there have been more than one slate of electors for the same candidate. This primarily happened in the deep South with the black Democratic party competing with the white Democratic party as well as the Republicans. This is definitely undemocratic and would not happen with a simple plurality winning the vote.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This article shows how blatantly unfair the Electoral College system is. In large states like New York, California, and Texas, there are 600,000 to over 700,000 residents per electoral vote. In small states like Wyoming, Vermontm and North Dakota, there are about 200,000 residents per electoral vote.

This means that a person's vote is vote more than 3 times as much in Wyoming as it is in New York. Whatever happened to the idea of one man/one vote?

So?

This is still a federal republic. The states elect the president, not the people. No one has ever tried to hide that fact. I was not aware that there was any claim of one man/one vote when it comes to choosing a president. When did that come into the picture?

Actually, the original reason for the Electoral College was to allow voters to vote for local electors that they were familiar with to cast their proxy vote for president rather than for a presidential candidate they knew very little about.

Read that clause again. It was up to the states to choose how electors were chosen. In the early days some voters never cast a ballot even for electors but they were chosen by state legislators. Even today not every elector is chosen my popular vote, a small number are chosen based on the being the popular vote winner in the state. It wasn't until 1860, I believe that every state chose electors by popular vote.

I don't mind differences of opinion, but flat out errors about constitutional facts, intentional or otherwise, cannot be left unchallenged.

Anyone who thinks that the president was ever intended to be elected by the people is wrong. To change that would require a fundamental change to the fabric of the Constitution. It would be a further erosion of the almost negligible power remaining for the states.

 

[saturneptune]

I don't mind differences of opinion, but flat out errors about constitutional facts, intentional or otherwise, cannot be left unchallenged.
Anyone who thinks that the president was ever intended to be elected by the people is wrong. To change that would require a fundamental change to the fabric of the Constitution. It would be a further erosion of the almost negligible power remaining for the states.

The person you are addressing has never read the Constitution. The posts he types cannot be reasoned with as they are all over the spectrum and without logic either from a Constittutional, historical, or governmental perspective.

 

[saturneptune]

U.S. House:
Montana's Denny Rehberg represents nearly a million residents.
Wyoming's Cynthia Lummis represents about half a million residents.

The House is theoretically an equal representation body, which in most cases is true. However, when you get down to the smallest population states, it cannot be perfect. There has to be one represenative from each state regardless of the population, and in some cases of small states, not enough for two, so at the lower end, the mathematics is not perfect.

This is still the best system of government in history if we would only follow the Constitution in how the country is governed.

 

[rbell]

This article shows how blatantly unfair the Electoral College system is. In large states like New York, California, and Texas, there are 600,000 to over 700,000 residents per electoral vote. In small states like Wyoming, Vermontm and North Dakota, there are about 200,000 residents per electoral vote.

This means that a person's vote is vote more than 3 times as much in Wyoming as it is in New York. Whatever happened to the idea of one man/one vote?

I bet you wouldn't complain any if the smaller states were blue states. Actually, you're just complaining about 2000's election, because it didn't go your way. Sorry, bub...they set it up that way for a reason, and it's working fine.

Furthermore, your complaint is invalid...because winning a New York or a California carries so much more weight than Wyoming et al. It takes 10 or more of the smallest states to come close to a CA, FL, or NY. So even with those numbers as they are, the setup is to make sure smaller states aren't left out in the cold.

Watch how they campaign. They practically live in the heavy-population swing states. They barely set foot in some of the smaller ones.

If your argument held water, they wouldn't behave that way.

Frankly, I'd trust Thomas Jefferson and James Madison over alatide eight days a week.

 

[rbell]

Actually, the original reason for the Electoral College was to allow voters to vote for local electors that they were familiar with to cast their proxy vote for president rather than for a presidential candidate they knew very little about. This was a good idea during the early days of America (say until 1900) but now isn't worthwhile due to mass communications.

The idea that the vote of voters in small states is worth 3 times the vote of voters in large states just isn't very democratic, Besides, moving away from using the electoral collage would reduce the chances of voting fraud since a candidate could no longer win by manipulating the count in one or two states as Bush did in 2000.

Another reason for changing the way we elect a president is that in the past there have been more than one slate of electors for the same candidate. This primarily happened in the deep South with the black Democratic party competing with the white Democratic party as well as the Republicans. This is definitely undemocratic and would not happen with a simple plurality winning the vote.

Bingo! I knew this was a whine about the 2000 election. Nothing more.

And if you bothered reading history, you would discover that our founding fathers wanted no part of pure democracy..."mob rule."

BTW, you are deliberately lying about the "fraud" in the 2000 election. We all know you're lying. You know you're lying. So let's not pretend, OK?


Guys, this EC debate is nothing but an angry leftist, whining because his guy didn't win in 2000. He's willing to screw up a great system that has worked for centuries, simply because he's a sore loser.

 

[alatide]

So?

This is still a federal republic. The states elect the president, not the people. No one has ever tried to hide that fact. I was not aware that there was any claim of one man/one vote when it comes to choosing a president. When did that come into the picture?



Read that clause again. It was up to the states to choose how electors were chosen. In the early days some voters never cast a ballot even for electors but they were chosen by state legislators. Even today not every elector is chosen my popular vote, a small number are chosen based on the being the popular vote winner in the state. It wasn't until 1860, I believe that every state chose electors by popular vote.

I don't mind differences of opinion, but flat out errors about constitutional facts, intentional or otherwise, cannot be left unchallenged.

Anyone who thinks that the president was ever intended to be elected by the people is wrong. To change that would require a fundamental change to the fabric of the Constitution. It would be a further erosion of the almost negligible power remaining for the states.

What I am arguing for is a CHANGE in the way we elect the president. I believe that the president SHOULD be elected by the people and that everyone's vote should count equally. I was not arguing that that's the way it is today. Understand? I didn't post factual errors. I posted a call for a change.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What I am arguing for is a CHANGE in the way we elect the president. I believe that the president SHOULD be elected by the people and that everyone's vote should count equally. I was not arguing that that's the way it is today. Understand? I didn't post factual errors. I posted a call for a change.

Here is your factual error:

Actually, the original reason for the Electoral College was to allow voters to vote for local electors that they were familiar with to cast their proxy vote for president rather than for a presidential candidate they knew very little about.

There was never a consideration of a 'proxy vote.' Citizens have never used anyone to cast proxy votes for them.

I disagree with your opinion but have no problem with your holding of it, but please don't revise history to support your views.

 

[rbell]

What I am arguing for is a CHANGE in the way we elect the president. I believe that the president SHOULD be elected by the people and that everyone's vote should count equally. I was not arguing that that's the way it is today. Understand? I didn't post factual errors. I posted a call for a change.

I couldn't disagree more. There was a reason the Founding Fathers didn't want a pure democracy. Nor do I.

Your proposal would render my vote completely irrelevant...not to mention further erode the power of the states (which is already suffering enough, due to the federal power-grab that has been going on for years...from Democrat and Republican administrations...)