4 ms·

Great. With no electoral college, Wyoming would have 1.44% of the weight California would have towards who was elected. The only thing keeping Wyoming in the U

Great. With no electoral college, Wyoming would have 1.44% of the weight California would have towards who was elected. The only thing keeping Wyoming in the Union would be their two senators. Maybe then Wyoming folks should have to pay 1.44% of the Federal Income Tax that Californians pay. Campaigning for President? Just go to New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, and maybe a few other cities. Maybe city folks can start making their own food while they're at it.

georgeecollins 7y ago
Guess what? Wyoming pays less than 1.07% <1> of the federal income tax that California does so you have gotten your wish. Also California grows about 100x <2> the food of Wyoming so yeah we can eat our own food, thank you. The most important reason the electoral college was invented was so that states with large slave populations could count 60% of them for representation without actually giving them the vote. You don't hear about it that much anymore for obvious reasons. <1> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state <2> https://www.farmprogress.com/management/what-us-states-produce-most-food-ranking-1-50 https://www.farmprogress.com/management/what-us-states-produ...
- waynecochran 7y ago
  Nice response. With actual data. Of course I am not sure the folks in the San Jaoquin Valley (who produce all that food) would be colored blue if they were an independent state. I don't buy the slave argument -- I think the electoral college was created for the same reason we have two senators per state. Of course those states with large slave populations would have been colored blue, but that is another history folks ignore.
  - georgeecollins 7y ago
    And if the San Jaoquin Valley became its own state conservative votes in San Jaoquin valley and San Fransico would count more if they were seperate states. Which is the whole point. It's telling that my point about economics and representation got turned into a blue / red thing. >> I don't buy that slave arguement.. And you are a historian? The slave states that were large like Virginia wanted the electoral college, contradicting your argument. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slav... https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/electoral-college-slavery.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/electoral-college...
    - waynecochran 7y ago
      It seems the electoral college was exploited by slave owners, but what I challenge is that is was created for that purpose. It articles see the electoral college was a vestige of slavery, but that does not seem like a reasonable conclusion. The sources you give all have a serious bias and a vested interest in seeing the electoral college disbanded.
      - georgeecollins 7y ago
        It was supported by the largest state at the time, so the idea that it was created to "help small states" makes no sense. It served that purpose but that is not why it was made. You provide no evidence and when I site sources you say they are biased. If you believe the sources are biased please note that they site books, experts etc. If you just reject every piece of evidence you will always be right.

georgeecollins 7y ago

Guess what? Wyoming pays less than 1.07% <1> of the federal income tax that California does so you have gotten your wish. Also California grows about 100x <2> the food of Wyoming so yeah we can eat our own food, thank you. The most important reason the electoral college was invented was so that states with large slave populations could count 60% of them for representation without actually giving them the vote. You don't hear about it that much anymore for obvious reasons. <1> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state <2> https://www.farmprogress.com/management/what-us-states-produce-most-food-ranking-1-50 https://www.farmprogress.com/management/what-us-states-produ...

waynecochran 7y ago
Nice response. With actual data. Of course I am not sure the folks in the San Jaoquin Valley (who produce all that food) would be colored blue if they were an independent state. I don't buy the slave argument -- I think the electoral college was created for the same reason we have two senators per state. Of course those states with large slave populations would have been colored blue, but that is another history folks ignore.
- georgeecollins 7y ago
  And if the San Jaoquin Valley became its own state conservative votes in San Jaoquin valley and San Fransico would count more if they were seperate states. Which is the whole point. It's telling that my point about economics and representation got turned into a blue / red thing. >> I don't buy that slave arguement.. And you are a historian? The slave states that were large like Virginia wanted the electoral college, contradicting your argument. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slav... https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/electoral-college-slavery.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/electoral-college...
  - waynecochran 7y ago
    It seems the electoral college was exploited by slave owners, but what I challenge is that is was created for that purpose. It articles see the electoral college was a vestige of slavery, but that does not seem like a reasonable conclusion. The sources you give all have a serious bias and a vested interest in seeing the electoral college disbanded.
    - georgeecollins 7y ago
      It was supported by the largest state at the time, so the idea that it was created to "help small states" makes no sense. It served that purpose but that is not why it was made. You provide no evidence and when I site sources you say they are biased. If you believe the sources are biased please note that they site books, experts etc. If you just reject every piece of evidence you will always be right.