ADVERTISEMENT

Elections have meaning.

Rockport Zebra

All-American
Jan 30, 2002
8,203
3,354
113
You want to change the electoral collage, you want to do away with the republic and let majority rule but all you have to do is win.If you don't like them vote them out.
 
Last edited:
You want to change the electoral collage, you want to do away with the republic and let majority rule but all you have to do is win.If you don't like them vote them out.

What is funny is that the EC was set up to do exactly what it is doing. Now Libs are saying it’s not fair that North Dakota gets two Senators, the same as New York. How terrible is that?? What will be next?

https://freebeacon.com/politics/nbcs-ken-dilanian-north-dakota-new-york-votes-senate-change/
 
What is funny is that the EC was set up to do exactly what it is doing. Now Libs are saying it’s not fair that North Dakota gets two Senators, the same as New York. How terrible is that?? What will be next?

https://freebeacon.com/politics/nbcs-ken-dilanian-north-dakota-new-york-votes-senate-change/
What is funny is that the EC was set up to do exactly what it is doing. Now Libs are saying it’s not fair that North Dakota gets two Senators, the same as New York. How terrible is that?? What will be next?

https://freebeacon.com/politics/nbcs-ken-dilanian-north-dakota-new-york-votes-senate-change/
If Dems want to change the Electoral College procedure all they have to do is propose an amendment to the Constitution and get it passed by the required majorities in Congress and ratified by 37 states.

They riot for control of the courts because their policies - the big ones like unlimited abortions, extreme gun control, national health care - can never be successfully amended into the Constitution. So Dems/Libs/Progressives/Socialists need to have the court make their policies for them and that train just left the station. That's what the mob violence and threats are all about. Dems cannot get their policies enacted legislatively so they fund, pay and turn loose the rent-a-mob.
 
If Dems want to change the Electoral College procedure all they have to do is propose an amendment to the Constitution and get it passed by the required majorities in Congress and ratified by 37 states.

They riot for control of the courts because their policies - the big ones like unlimited abortions, extreme gun control, national health care - can never be successfully amended into the Constitution. So Dems/Libs/Progressives/Socialists need to have the court make their policies for them and that train just left the station. That's what the mob violence and threats are all about. Dems cannot get their policies enacted legislatively so they fund, pay and turn loose the rent-a-mob.

A+. The Democratic Mob knows they can’t change things within the constitution. Therefore the Democratic Mob. Busting up peoples’ cars on city streets and pulling old folks out of their cars. They’re no better than the Klan and White Nationalists.

I beg one of them to beat on my car or try to pull me out of my car.
 
Dems should restore the old fashioned way of politicking. Develope grass roots organizations. Use these organizations to identify voters likely to support their party by polling neighborhoods. Register these voters. Finally make sure they vote.

Consistent with the above, work hard to make voting easier and less time consuming for working people. National holidays for voting would be one approach
 
A+. The Democratic Mob knows they can’t change things within the constitution. Therefore the Democratic Mob. Busting up peoples’ cars on city streets and pulling old folks out of their cars. They’re no better than the Klan and White Nationalists.
I don't know where you live, but these are the type of "mobs" that I'm familiar with. You should get out some more. Talk to some Democrats. Take a statistics class. Don't be so quick to let others tell you how to think.

unnamed-10-e1446653673271.jpg


unnamed-9-e1446654145500.jpg
 
What is funny is that the EC was set up to do exactly what it is doing. Now Libs are saying it’s not fair that North Dakota gets two Senators, the same as New York. How terrible is that?? What will be next?

https://freebeacon.com/politics/nbcs-ken-dilanian-north-dakota-new-york-votes-senate-change/
Another blanket statement, yet I personally have never heard any "lib" say that at all. On the other hand, the way things are gerrymandered in Indiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and many other states the " radical cons" have done their work to tip the scales. Don't really even need to mention the continual "radical cons" efforts to suppress the vote at all costs in the name of patriotism. What's next...white property owners only? lol. Look in the mirror and try thinking on occasion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
A+. The Democratic Mob knows they can’t change things within the constitution. Therefore the Democratic Mob. Busting up peoples’ cars on city streets and pulling old folks out of their cars. They’re no better than the Klan and White Nationalists.

I beg one of them to beat on my car or try to pull me out of my car.
LOL
 
Lol. Truth hard to take on the New Mob.
Mobs are almost always present at the births of tyrannies. I would take the reemergence of the Klan and Nazis as well as Antifa as alarms that American democracy is threatened and the potential for tyranny elevated. A much, much more significant alarm is the GOP's embrace of tyranny. They have elected a man who literally and publicly idolizes the world's most murderous tyrants. They are dramatically accelerating their project of systematically disenfranchising an absolute majority of the American population.

As everyone knows, tyrannies always ends badly, particularly for tyrants. Mobs are often involved then too but their presence mostly heralds the emergence of yet another tyrant. Transitions to democracy are not achieved by mobs.
 
Another blanket statement, yet I personally have never heard any "lib" say that at all. On the other hand, the way things are gerrymandered in Indiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and many other states the " radical cons" have done their work to tip the scales. Don't really even need to mention the continual "radical cons" efforts to suppress the vote at all costs in the name of patriotism. What's next...white property owners only? lol. Look in the mirror and try thinking on occasion.

So you don’t see the irony of a left wing media outlet complaining about ND having two Senators and New York “only” having two Senators? Wow!
 
  • Like
Reactions: herrli
Mobs are almost always present at the births of tyrannies. I would take the reemergence of the Klan and Nazis as well as Antifa as alarms that American democracy is threatened and the potential for tyranny elevated. A much, much more significant alarm is the GOP's embrace of tyranny. They have elected a man who literally and publicly idolizes the world's most murderous tyrants. They are dramatically accelerating their project of systematically disenfranchising an absolute majority of the American population.

As everyone knows, tyrannies always ends badly, particularly for tyrants. Mobs are often involved then too but their presence mostly heralds the emergence of yet another tyrant. Transitions to democracy are not achieved by mobs.
The parrots have heard Trump fulminating against Democratic mobs, so the parrots are squawking about Democratic mobs.
 
You are absolutely insane.

Do something about the EC then other than run your mouth with non-responsive personal attacks. Attempt to get legislation or Constitutional amendments on your leftist issues. Why can't the Constitution be amended to your liking? Try it - go ahead.

Its the same reason your side now resorts to mob violence. You can't get your way so you attack - some of your fellow travellers are paid cash to do their thing.
 
Another blanket statement, yet I personally have never heard any "lib" say that at all. On the other hand, the way things are gerrymandered in Indiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and many other states the " radical cons" have done their work to tip the scales. Don't really even need to mention the continual "radical cons" efforts to suppress the vote at all costs in the name of patriotism. What's next...white property owners only? lol. Look in the mirror and try thinking on occasion.

Correction.... you meant to say “look in the mirror and think like me.”...
 
What is funny is that the EC was set up to do exactly what it is doing. Now Libs are saying it’s not fair that North Dakota gets two Senators, the same as New York. How terrible is that?? What will be next?

https://freebeacon.com/politics/nbcs-ken-dilanian-north-dakota-new-york-votes-senate-change/

Yeah let's pretend that it was the Dems who initially criticized the EC and advocated for "Revolution" and resistance after losing an election. At least the Dems could point out that they WON the popular vote AND the EC. The following tweets from Trump in 2012 are whining about changing the EC in a race in which his side lost BOTH the popular vote AND the EC...


"More votes equals a loss...revolution!



— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012


Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266035509162303492

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

12:33 AM - Nov 7, 2012
Twitter Ads info and privacy



Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266037143628038144

Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before.

12:39 AM - Nov 7, 2012
Twitter Ads info and privacy



Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

12:45 AM - Nov 7, 2012
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Don't worry all hope isn't lost though, Trump still has faith in the Republican controlled House of Representatives to carry the country, but of course only if it's on Trump's own terms. But no word yet if the House of Reps even know who the fanatic guy on Twitter is.


Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266039105035595776

Hopefully the House of Representatives can hold our country together for four more years...stay strong and never give up!

12:47 AM - Nov 7, 2012
Twitter Ads info and privacy



Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266040877552656385

House of Representatives shouldn't give anything to Obama unless he terminates Obamacare."

https://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump-reacts-to-election/#mKjOxEdgguqJ
 
Lol. Truth hard to take on the New Mob.

Where can I find this “dem mob” that you speak of? I’ve yet to see them.

It’s funny how quickly you guys buy into the GOP talking points. Which takes one small example, and projects it on an entire group of people. And it’s usually an element of fear that drives the talking point in some way.

The reality is that many people on the left are pissed off, and they’re organizing and demonstrating. The vast, vast majority are doing it in a peaceful way. And the ones that aren’t are called out- by everybody. But there just aren’t many of them.

There’s nothing more American than protest. It’s good to see people actually care about elections on the left. About damn time.
 
Lol. Truth hard to take on the New Mob.

Where can I find this “dem mob” that you speak of? I’ve yet to see them.

It’s funny how quickly you guys buy into the GOP talking points. Which takes one small example, and projects it on an entire group of people. And it’s usually an element of fear that drives the talking point in some way.

The reality is that many people on the left are pissed off, and they’re organizing and demonstrating. The vast, vast majority are doing it in a peaceful way. And the ones that aren’t are called out- by everybody. But there just aren’t many of them.

There’s nothing more American than protest. It’s good to see people actually care about elections on the left. About damn time.
Yeah, it’s funny how Chuck Grassley said it was a good thing that there were protests after Kavanaugh was confirmed and McConnel and Trump called them a mob.
 

Are you trying to argue that slavery WAS NOT a main consideration in advocating and adopting the Electoral College? Madison's own words destroy that argument (he was a slaveholder)...

When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.”

During that same speech on Thursday, July 19, Madison instead proposed a prototype for the same Electoral College system the country uses today. Each state has a number of electoral votes roughly proportioned to population and the candidate who wins the majority of votes wins the election.

Since then, the Electoral College system has cost four candidates the race after they received the popular vote — most recently in 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. Such anomalies and other criticisms have pushed 10 Democratic states to enroll in a popular vote system. And while there are many grievances about the Electoral College, one that’s rarely addressed is one dug up by an academic of the Constitution: that it was created to protect slavery, planting the roots of a system that’s still oppressive today.

“It’s embarrassing,” said Paul Finkelman, visiting law professor at University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I think if most Americans knew what the origins of the Electoral College is, they would be disgusted.”

Madison, now known as the “Father of the Constitution,” was a slave-owner in Virginia, which at the time was the most populous of the 13 states if the count included slaves, who comprised about 40 percent of its population.

During that key speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Madison said that with a popular vote, the Southern states, “could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution
 
Yes, you've found a guy on the internets who lays out the grade school history of the Electoral College. But like way too much of the discussions about the founding period, it imagines that the Framers were like disinterested philosophers debating how to establish some Platonic ideal of government, entirely divorced from the real world concerns that actually motivated them. This is deeply silly, even though it's the way most people understand it, to the extent they understand it at all.

If you'd read grown up histories you'd learn that slavery was the number one issue for all of the slave states. They weren't going to surrender their sovereignty to a larger Republic that could vote slavery out of existence. Little of the Constitution was untouched by that imperative. In particular, the Electoral College insured that our earliest presidents would be pro-slavery:

In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)
Which do you think was more likely: That Southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention were primarily concerned about Platonic ideals of government, or that the Southern delegates were primarily concerned about maintaining the institution of slavery, on which their economies and societies depended?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iu_a_att
The parrots have heard Trump fulminating against Democratic mobs, so the parrots are squawking about Democratic mobs.
Parrots always follow the party line. It is not the parroting that alarms me, it is the lines being parroted. Trump is continuously searching for pretexts to destroy institutional checks on his power. Elevating Antifa into a threat of mob rule is the kind of pretext autocrats use to justify government repression. It is the playbook being followed by emerging autocrats around the globe. That alarms me. Trump never puts out fires he only ever pours gas on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rockfish1
Are you trying to argue that slavery WAS NOT a main consideration in advocating and adopting the Electoral College? Madison's own words destroy that argument (he was a slaveholder)...

When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that “Negroes” in the South presented a “difficulty … of a serious nature.”

During that same speech on Thursday, July 19, Madison instead proposed a prototype for the same Electoral College system the country uses today. Each state has a number of electoral votes roughly proportioned to population and the candidate who wins the majority of votes wins the election.

Since then, the Electoral College system has cost four candidates the race after they received the popular vote — most recently in 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. Such anomalies and other criticisms have pushed 10 Democratic states to enroll in a popular vote system. And while there are many grievances about the Electoral College, one that’s rarely addressed is one dug up by an academic of the Constitution: that it was created to protect slavery, planting the roots of a system that’s still oppressive today.

“It’s embarrassing,” said Paul Finkelman, visiting law professor at University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I think if most Americans knew what the origins of the Electoral College is, they would be disgusted.”

Madison, now known as the “Father of the Constitution,” was a slave-owner in Virginia, which at the time was the most populous of the 13 states if the count included slaves, who comprised about 40 percent of its population.

During that key speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Madison said that with a popular vote, the Southern states, “could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution

Here's the problem. The issue wasn't really slavery or no slavery. The issue was a USA or no USA. Taking that back a couple of decades, the issue was an American revolution or no revolution.

If you want to play a "what if game" imagine what North America would be like with no Louisiana Purchase, no Alaskan Purchase, an independent slave nation in the South or even Republics of California and Texas existing in today's world.

And I don't buy your condemnation of the EC with a slavery brush. First of all we now have a slavery ban in our Constitution. But the EC gives us a more enduring structure. There are many advantages in having institutional and guaranteed regional representation in the national government. We have no national elected officials, zero, zip nada. They are ALL selected by the states and sent to the District by the people of the States. We tend to think of the United States as a national entity. No, it is a union of states, just as the Preamble says we are. This has been a strong survival mechanism. Countries all over the world are under tension for many reasons, but one of the common reasons is the lack of strong regional representation in the national structure. We aren't perfect, but the regional ideas protected by the EC and the structure of the senate run to our advantage in the long run.

"Since then, the Electoral College system has cost four candidates the race after they received the popular vote — most recently in 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush." This is a totally vacuous argument. The constitution has no provision for a national election. The national vote total is an absolutely meaningless statistic. Instead we have 50 separate state elections for president. Trump won more of those elections than Clinton did, both in absolute and in population weighted terms. You can't take a margin of victory in California and move it to Ohio. Period. We never lost "four candidates" in any way whatsoever.
 
Where can I find this “dem mob” that you speak of? I’ve yet to see them.

It’s funny how quickly you guys buy into the GOP talking points. Which takes one small example, and projects it on an entire group of people. And it’s usually an element of fear that drives the talking point in some way.

The reality is that many people on the left are pissed off, and they’re organizing and demonstrating. The vast, vast majority are doing it in a peaceful way. And the ones that aren’t are called out- by everybody. But there just aren’t many of them.

There’s nothing more American than protest. It’s good to see people actually care about elections on the left. About damn time.
Check with your controller leadership. They decide where, when and how much to pay those engaging in mob conduct on the side of Dems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: herrli
Here's the problem. The issue wasn't really slavery or no slavery. The issue was a USA or no USA. Taking that back a couple of decades, the issue was an American revolution or no revolution.

If you want to play a "what if game" imagine what North America would be like with no Louisiana Purchase, no Alaskan Purchase, an independent slave nation in the South or even Republics of California and Texas existing in today's world.

And I don't buy your condemnation of the EC with a slavery brush. First of all we now have a slavery ban in our Constitution. But the EC gives us a more enduring structure. There are many advantages in having institutional and guaranteed regional representation in the national government. We have no national elected officials, zero, zip nada. They are ALL selected by the states and sent to the District by the people of the States. We tend to think of the United States as a national entity. No, it is a union of states, just as the Preamble says we are. This has been a strong survival mechanism. Countries all over the world are under tension for many reasons, but one of the common reasons is the lack of strong regional representation in the national structure. We aren't perfect, but the regional ideas protected by the EC and the structure of the senate run to our advantage in the long run.

"Since then, the Electoral College system has cost four candidates the race after they received the popular vote — most recently in 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush." This is a totally vacuous argument. The constitution has no provision for a national election. The national vote total is an absolutely meaningless statistic. Instead we have 50 separate state elections for president. Trump won more of those elections than Clinton did, both in absolute and in population weighted terms. You can't take a margin of victory in California and move it to Ohio. Period. We never lost "four candidates" in any way whatsoever.

The dems just can't understand it can they? But rest assured if they thought it worked for them they would be out rioting at the thought of change. Maybe we should let CA and NY control the voting in all states because what they basically are saying all senators should be voted on nationally so we can control it . It is the same concept , they don't understand and don't want to understand
 
Another blanket statement, yet I personally have never heard any "lib" say that at all. On the other hand, the way things are gerrymandered in Indiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and many other states the " radical cons" have done their work to tip the scales. Don't really even need to mention the continual "radical cons" efforts to suppress the vote at all costs in the name of patriotism. What's next...white property owners only? lol. Look in the mirror and try thinking on occasion.
Meanwhile, Georgia’s right wing Secretary of State is disenfranchising minority voters to help himself become Georgia’s right wing governor.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/new-jim-crow-2
 
What do the number of senators have to do with the electoral college?
Because the formula for figuring the number of electors is the total of Senators and Representatives the state is entitled to in Congress. This means that, while the large House delegations in large states makes their EC contributions relatively proportional to each other, and even roughly proportional to the medium-sized states, they are much weaker on a per capita basis compared to the smaller states, for whom those two extra votes make a huge difference.

For example, the three largest states - California, Texas, and Florida - all have between 700,000 and 750,000 citizens per EC vote. And the next thirty or so states in population all range from between roughly 500,000 and 700,000 per vote. But when you get towards the end of the list, the numbers are dramatically lower: the five smallest states all have fewer than 300,000 people per EC vote.
 
Because the formula for figuring the number of electors is the total of Senators and Representatives the state is entitled to in Congress. This means that, while the large House delegations in large states makes their EC contributions relatively proportional to each other, and even roughly proportional to the medium-sized states, they are much weaker on a per capita basis compared to the smaller states, for whom those two extra votes make a huge difference.

For example, the three largest states - California, Texas, and Florida - all have between 700,000 and 750,000 citizens per EC vote. And the next thirty or so states in population all range from between roughly 500,000 and 700,000 per vote. But when you get towards the end of the list, the numbers are dramatically lower: the five smallest states all have fewer than 300,000 people per EC vote.
Thanks. I never looked that up before.
 
No one with a brain believes the people protesting are being paid... On the other hand...

Not only did Trump "pay" actors $50 to show up at his candidacy announcement, but (in true Trump fashion) he ended up stiffing them...



https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/how-much-does-trump-pay-people-to-cheer-at-his-rallies.html/

As a general rule, if you hear a republican bitching about someone doing something, you can assume the republican is currently doing the same thing or has done the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iuwclurker
Here's the problem. The issue wasn't really slavery or no slavery. The issue was a USA or no USA. Taking that back a couple of decades, the issue was an American revolution or no revolution.

If you want to play a "what if game" imagine what North America would be like with no Louisiana Purchase, no Alaskan Purchase, an independent slave nation in the South or even Republics of California and Texas existing in today's world.

And I don't buy your condemnation of the EC with a slavery brush. First of all we now have a slavery ban in our Constitution. But the EC gives us a more enduring structure. There are many advantages in having institutional and guaranteed regional representation in the national government. We have no national elected officials, zero, zip nada. They are ALL selected by the states and sent to the District by the people of the States. We tend to think of the United States as a national entity. No, it is a union of states, just as the Preamble says we are. This has been a strong survival mechanism. Countries all over the world are under tension for many reasons, but one of the common reasons is the lack of strong regional representation in the national structure. We aren't perfect, but the regional ideas protected by the EC and the structure of the senate run to our advantage in the long run.

"Since then, the Electoral College system has cost four candidates the race after they received the popular vote — most recently in 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush." This is a totally vacuous argument. The constitution has no provision for a national election. The national vote total is an absolutely meaningless statistic. Instead we have 50 separate state elections for president. Trump won more of those elections than Clinton did, both in absolute and in population weighted terms. You can't take a margin of victory in California and move it to Ohio. Period. We never lost "four candidates" in any way whatsoever.

Not directed to you as I do not recall you touting originalism. But for those that do, your mention of the LA purchase is perfect. Even TJ thought it was unconstitutional, but did it anyway. Our country, if governed by perfect original thinking, would be a shadow of what it now is.
 
No one with a brain believes the people protesting are being paid... On the other hand...

Not only did Trump "pay" actors $50 to show up at his candidacy announcement, but (in true Trump fashion) he ended up stiffing them...



https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/how-much-does-trump-pay-people-to-cheer-at-his-rallies.html/
You didn't see the videos of people getting paid cash in line to get into the confirmation hearings? You better try watching something other than communist tv
 
Correction.... you meant to say “look in the mirror and think like me.”...

Hey now, stop rocking the boat and thinking for yourself...vbg.

As many members of the party of diversity and inclusion both here and elsewhere will attest, they don't consider their party's fringe elements to be indicative of the whole. Never mind when their last POTUS told us all that "elections have consequences", or when their last POTUS candidate and former SOS said earlier this week "civility can start again" on their side when they regain power, or when their recent 6 year USAG said referring to the right "when they go low, we kick em", or when a Democratic Staffer doxxed several Republicans a few weeks back, or when their members of the Judiciary and Financial Services committees recently told their base to "get in their faces" in hopes to accost members of the current administration and Republican politicians in public places. And this is just a partial list.

To me, when mainstream politicians from the left say and do the things listed above, and they did, then to see so many people here refer to them as just "fringe elements who don't represent them", or even worse "yabbut" in an effort to deflect and defend...well let me just say it rings awfully hollow when you claim it. It's almost Orwellian to see them defend when the evidence to the contrary is incontrovertible, to deflect as if two wrongs make a right...such slavish devotion to party, unwavering defense of said devotion and all the while so completely lacking in self awareness they fail to realize their party has become substantively no different than the party they despise, at least in actions..

Another example of the two sides of the same coin theory.

8505857.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
Because the formula for figuring the number of electors is the total of Senators and Representatives the state is entitled to in Congress. This means that, while the large House delegations in large states makes their EC contributions relatively proportional to each other, and even roughly proportional to the medium-sized states, they are much weaker on a per capita basis compared to the smaller states, for whom those two extra votes make a huge difference.

For example, the three largest states - California, Texas, and Florida - all have between 700,000 and 750,000 citizens per EC vote. And the next thirty or so states in population all range from between roughly 500,000 and 700,000 per vote. But when you get towards the end of the list, the numbers are dramatically lower: the five smallest states all have fewer than 300,000 people per EC vote.

Yes, states with small populations get a bit extra weight....but it is not like it all goes to one side.

Looking at the lowest populated 15 states, 8 went red and 7 went blue in 2016. And actually 8-8 when you account for the fact that DC gets 3 electoral votes (which if a state would be the least populated).
 
Yes, states with small populations get a bit extra weight....but it is not like it all goes to one side.

Looking at the lowest populated 15 states, 8 went red and 7 went blue in 2016. And actually 8-8 when you account for the fact that DC gets 3 electoral votes (which if a state would be the least populated).
It doesn't go all to one side, but in most years, it favors red states a bit. For example, in 2012, red states had 587K people per vote, while blue states had 619K. When certain high-population states switched to red in 2016 (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan), that gap narrowed to be statistically insignificant, 604K to 607K. That's pretty much the pattern. If the Republican wins, the numbers are very close, and if the Democrat wins, there is a noticeable gap that favors the red states. The last time the gap favored the blue states was 1992, when Clinton won low-pop states like Montana and West Virginia, but lost Florida.

All that said, I obviously wasn't promoting the idea that there is some kind of huge partisan advantage built in. I do think the numbers prove the GOP has a very minor advantage in the Electoral College, but "minor" is the operative word there. That advantage can clearly be overcome, as evidenced by eight years of President Obama.

But even when you ignore partisan considerations, it's worth recognizing that the disparity does exist, if for no other reason than to ask ourselves, is there really a good reason that a Vermonter has three-and-a-half times the voting power of a Texan when it comes to electing our primary national leader?
 
s there really a good reason that a Vermonter has three-and-a-half times the voting power of a Texan when it comes to electing our primary national leader?
I'd say yes - emphatically. If the Electoral College didn't exist, our Presidential candidates wouldn't give a flying fack about the smaller states in this country. They'd spend all their time campaigning on issues important to the largest cities and states in this country. Smaller states only get a small boost in their importance because of the EC, but it's enough of one that Presidential candidates (and ultimately the elected President) has to actually care about the issues in the mid to smaller states too. I've thought the EC was genius since I learned about it as a kid and only thought more of it as I learned more about it through my college years (started out as a Political Science major) and beyond. Long live the EC!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing and stollcpa
I'd say yes - emphatically. If the Electoral College didn't exist, our Presidential candidates wouldn't give a flying fack about the smaller states in this country. They'd spend all their time campaigning on issues important to the largest cities and states in this country. Smaller states only get a small boost in their importance because of the EC, but it's enough of one that Presidential candidates (and ultimately the elected President) has to actually care about the issues in the mid to smaller states too. I've thought the EC was genius since I learned about it as a kid and only thought more of it as I learned more about it through my college years (started out as a Political Science major) and beyond. Long live the EC!
While true, how often did candidates go to CA, TX, or NY? The current system disengages them.
 
ADVERTISEMENT