I'm not going to explain to you why your earlier reply was a complete non-sequitur and why you're still wrong -- I enjoy the way you try to defend your defenseless comments. I see you've resorted to using ALL CAPS as a defense. Hahahahahahaha
Jesus, what is with you? I’ve studied this subject intensively because legislative research was my job, consulted with Actual Election Law Experts, Not Internet Experts and came to the inescapable conclusion that, in general, amending Constitutions is incredibly dangerous, and, in particular, giving the Republican Party exactly what they need in order to rule as a minority for an least a generation is a really stupid idea.
I think a partial answer to the problems with the electoral college is that the first few post colonial generations didn't expect the US to reach a point where it's territory was static. Anyone who had foreseen the current boundaries and population (modest compared to some proposals) would still have expected many more states to divide the vote among.
Kind of, but I still think there's a workable solution that keeps the EC. Divorce the number of EC votes from the artificially limited number of seats in the House of Representatives, and tie it to population. That limit is what really throws everything out of whack. You could even keep the two Electors for Senators, in case a state's population would drop below the minimum threshold required for an EC vote (whatever that might be set at). I think 1,000,000 people is probably a good minimum. For fractions just use the old math rule: less than .5, round down; more than .5, round up.
Actually, the problem goes back to the Apportionment Act of 1911, which became effective in 1913. It set the total number of maximum House seats at 435. If we still apportioned Electoral College votes by population, (say one vote for every 1,000,000 persons plus two for the Senators) then Montana would have 3, and California would have 41.
It is NOT based entirely on population numbers. If it were based on population numbers, each state would only get as many electoral votes as it has members of congress. Automatically adding two to that number for every state gives outsize representation in the EC to the sparely populated ones.
Either you understand this, or you don't. If you don't, educate yourself and stop bothering me.
Trump won by millions of votes over the cheating scumBag. The truth will be revealed.
It's the rich who are getting fat off of other people's money: our money! They're the real "parasites."
Tell you what. When 100% of Yanks accept the earth is a sphere orbiting the sun, then you can discuss the vote.
And won the popular vote, pendejo. Hahahaha!
I'm not going to explain to you why your earlier reply was a complete non-sequitur and why you're still wrong -- I enjoy the way you try to defend your defenseless comments. I see you've resorted to using ALL CAPS as a defense. Hahahahahahaha
Love the little roller coaster behind the outfield....but I will still stay in Philadelphia thanks.
If you were any more dense they’d melt you down and make projectiles out of you.
Guess it depends on who you talk to. I've always heard it as "Containment", but "Consolidation" works just as well.
Jesus, what is with you? I’ve studied this subject intensively because legislative research was my job, consulted with Actual Election Law Experts, Not Internet Experts and came to the inescapable conclusion that, in general, amending Constitutions is incredibly dangerous, and, in particular, giving the Republican Party exactly what they need in order to rule as a minority for an least a generation is a really stupid idea.
I think a partial answer to the problems with the electoral college is that the first few post colonial generations didn't expect the US to reach a point where it's territory was static. Anyone who had foreseen the current boundaries and population (modest compared to some proposals) would still have expected many more states to divide the vote among.
Come back when you have substance to discuss.
Kind of, but I still think there's a workable solution that keeps the EC. Divorce the number of EC votes from the artificially limited number of seats in the House of Representatives, and tie it to population. That limit is what really throws everything out of whack. You could even keep the two Electors for Senators, in case a state's population would drop below the minimum threshold required for an EC vote (whatever that might be set at). I think 1,000,000 people is probably a good minimum. For fractions just use the old math rule: less than .5, round down; more than .5, round up.
Got it, thanks. The inclusion of Senators is what really throws the low-population states out of electoral balance.
Actually, the problem goes back to the Apportionment Act of 1911, which became effective in 1913. It set the total number of maximum House seats at 435. If we still apportioned Electoral College votes by population, (say one vote for every 1,000,000 persons plus two for the Senators) then Montana would have 3, and California would have 41.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
It is NOT based entirely on population numbers. If it were based on population numbers, each state would only get as many electoral votes as it has members of congress. Automatically adding two to that number for every state gives outsize representation in the EC to the sparely populated ones.
Either you understand this, or you don't. If you don't, educate yourself and stop bothering me.