6 ms·

California has more electors than Vermont.

by fjabre 6y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
You're still missing the point. The lowest number of electors a state can have is three. Mathematically, this biases the EC in favor of low population states. The same approach (all states having two senators) biases the Senate in favor of low population states. This appears to have been intentional on the part of the founders, but that doesn't make it right. [ EDIT: s/two/three/ ]
- fjabre 6y ago
  Yes it was designed for this purpose. That's what I'm saying. So big states couldn't bully around small ones.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    I guess it's better for small states to bully around big ones instead?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    In just a few years, 30% of the US population will be responsible for electing 70% of the Senate. How is that not "bullying"? How does that play any role in an actual democratic nation, as opposed to some pre-Lincoln concept of the US a series of independent states merely "unioned"? The answer is obvious: it doesn't.
DFHippie 6y ago
Vermont supports abolishing the Electoral College. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
xxpor 6y ago
623,989/3 = 207996.333333 39,510,000/55 = 718363.636364
- fjabre 6y ago
  So what? That's the point.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    You might have had a minimal argument pre-17th Amendment, but that's not how the world works any more. In addition, there's 0 reason for the house to be as malapportioned as it is. 435 house members isn't written in the constitution. Third, the entire concept of smaller states having an outsized voice in the federal government comes from the slave owners from the South in 1789. There's no rational basis for it any longer. People like to pretend the founders were deities and the constitution is handed down from god. But they weren't and it wasn't. A lot of their ideas were really stupid. I mean JFC, we couldn't even get through 3 elections before they had to redo it. Vermont has a lot more in common these days with California than it does North Dakota. The EC and Senate are outmoded relics from a stupider time that should be abolished.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >Third, the entire concept of smaller states having an outsized voice in the federal government comes from the slave owners from the South in 1789. There's no rational basis for it any longer. No. It had to do with Connecticut, New Jersey and other small population states who wouldn't have ratified the Constitution unless there was state representation (as we have in the Senate) to balance out the representation by population (cf. The Connecticut Compromise[0]). The southern states had (or expected to have) large populations, and as such, wanted representation by population. History and facts matter. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > The southern states had (or expected to have) large populations The Southern States were underrepresented in the Senate compared to the House by the initial apportionment in the Constitution, represented at very close to the same ratio in each House in the apportionment for the 1790 Census (largely reflecting that they had been overrepresented relative to population, in the House, in the Constitutional apportionment), and substantially overrepresented in the Senate compared to the House after the 1800 Census. They were well aware of the imminent demographic trends and acted accordingly. > History and facts matter. Indeed they do, but the history and facts aren't on the side of “the Southern States had large initial and expected future populations as counted for apportionment in the House and, so by-State representation in the Senate was contrary to, rather than designed to serve, their regional interest.”
triceratops 6y ago
A hypothetical state with 3 people, if admitted to the Union, would have the same number of electors as Wyoming. Clearly sheer numbers are meaningless. And you know that, you just want to argue in bad faith.

California has more electors than Vermont.

by fjabre 6y ago

California has more electors than Vermont.

You're still missing the point. The lowest number of electors a state can have is three. Mathematically, this biases the EC in favor of low population states. The same approach (all states having two senators) biases the Senate in favor of low population states. This appears to have been intentional on the part of the founders, but that doesn't make it right. [ EDIT: s/two/three/ ]

fjabre 6y ago
Yes it was designed for this purpose. That's what I'm saying. So big states couldn't bully around small ones.
- triceratops 6y ago
  I guess it's better for small states to bully around big ones instead?
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  In just a few years, 30% of the US population will be responsible for electing 70% of the Senate. How is that not "bullying"? How does that play any role in an actual democratic nation, as opposed to some pre-Lincoln concept of the US a series of independent states merely "unioned"? The answer is obvious: it doesn't.

DFHippie 6y ago

Vermont supports abolishing the Electoral College. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

xxpor 6y ago

623,989/3 = 207996.333333 39,510,000/55 = 718363.636364

fjabre 6y ago
So what? That's the point.
- xxpor 6y ago
  You might have had a minimal argument pre-17th Amendment, but that's not how the world works any more. In addition, there's 0 reason for the house to be as malapportioned as it is. 435 house members isn't written in the constitution. Third, the entire concept of smaller states having an outsized voice in the federal government comes from the slave owners from the South in 1789. There's no rational basis for it any longer. People like to pretend the founders were deities and the constitution is handed down from god. But they weren't and it wasn't. A lot of their ideas were really stupid. I mean JFC, we couldn't even get through 3 elections before they had to redo it. Vermont has a lot more in common these days with California than it does North Dakota. The EC and Senate are outmoded relics from a stupider time that should be abolished.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Third, the entire concept of smaller states having an outsized voice in the federal government comes from the slave owners from the South in 1789. There's no rational basis for it any longer. No. It had to do with Connecticut, New Jersey and other small population states who wouldn't have ratified the Constitution unless there was state representation (as we have in the Senate) to balance out the representation by population (cf. The Connecticut Compromise[0]). The southern states had (or expected to have) large populations, and as such, wanted representation by population. History and facts matter. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > The southern states had (or expected to have) large populations The Southern States were underrepresented in the Senate compared to the House by the initial apportionment in the Constitution, represented at very close to the same ratio in each House in the apportionment for the 1790 Census (largely reflecting that they had been overrepresented relative to population, in the House, in the Constitutional apportionment), and substantially overrepresented in the Senate compared to the House after the 1800 Census. They were well aware of the imminent demographic trends and acted accordingly. > History and facts matter. Indeed they do, but the history and facts aren't on the side of “the Southern States had large initial and expected future populations as counted for apportionment in the House and, so by-State representation in the Senate was contrary to, rather than designed to serve, their regional interest.”

triceratops 6y ago

A hypothetical state with 3 people, if admitted to the Union, would have the same number of electors as Wyoming. Clearly sheer numbers are meaningless. And you know that, you just want to argue in bad faith.