Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
Re: the earlier posts....I've had to come to the conclusion that the Electoral College is crooked. How did it get that way? Whose math is this and how did someone decide it was fair to do this to people?
From Slate: "The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote."
I disagree that it's crooked. to be crooked, it would have to be more beneficial to one party over another, and it's not, as far as I can see. is it imperfect? Yes, but I don't think it's crooked. If it's only crooked when your side doesn't win, that's not crooked.
Re: the earlier posts....I've had to come to the conclusion that the Electoral College is crooked. How did it get that way? Whose math is this and how did someone decide it was fair to do this to people?
From Slate: "The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote."
it you based it only on popular vote those small states would be inconsequential to the final votes. only the major cities and states would matter.
my issues with the electoral college is in most states the votes have to all go for one candidate. I think more states should break them down by areas somehow although I'm sure that would get drawn up to benefit certain parties. In Pennsylvania Trump won based on the rural areas (in fairness most years Dems win based on the urban areas) but all of our states electoral college votes went to Trump. I think it's much more unfair on a state-by-state and area-by-area based for the large states. You could live in a district that votes 98% for one candidate but still not get any electoral votes based on the rest of the state. to me that is a bit out of whack.
60 million people voted for him after he was shown on tape talking about sexually assaulting women. if that didn't turn people off to him i'm sure anything he says to or about female journalist's is going to hurt him with that base.
Re: the earlier posts....I've had to come to the conclusion that the Electoral College is crooked. How did it get that way? Whose math is this and how did someone decide it was fair to do this to people?
From Slate: "The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote."
I just went to Breitbart to get their spin. His base loves him even more after this.
His base, his supporters, people who voted for him should be embarrassed. He is a spoiled petulant narcissistic child who is doing one thing and one thing only.....embarrassing America.
60 million people voted for him after he was shown on tape talking about sexually assaulting women. if that didn't turn people off to him i'm sure anything he says to or about female journalist's is going to hurt him with that base.
True. Incredibly sad, but true.
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
Re: the earlier posts....I've had to come to the conclusion that the Electoral College is crooked. How did it get that way? Whose math is this and how did someone decide it was fair to do this to people?
From Slate: "The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote."
Yeah I think it's time to scrap it. It made sense when it was installed but that was before TV, radio, internet, etc.
Definitely not the will of the people any more.
That's how I feel too. Along with stupid gerrymandering, it's become a stupid game and isn't the best system for a country. We're people, not dollars and leaders should care about us. We have families and go to work, etc. It's just wrong...elected officials have lost sight of what it's all supposed to be about. We used to be very respected around the world but no more. :(
Re: the earlier posts....I've had to come to the conclusion that the Electoral College is crooked. How did it get that way? Whose math is this and how did someone decide it was fair to do this to people?
From Slate: "The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote."
Kat, there are some mathematics involved that seem complicated on the surface, but keep in mind that a floor and ceiling to proportional power were critical in the eyes of the drafters of the Constitution. These were largely divided States who needed to be assured that one State's power could never be so low as to be immaterial, and never so high as to make others irrelevant. I'll try my best (aided by some wonderful Wikipedia information and graphics) to explain.
The number of Electoral College votes is 538. Of those:
100 are for two senators per State, leaving 438.
A simulation of the assignment of electoral votes (States only - D.C. is not eligible) then determines the lowest number of electors a State would win, and that quantity of electors is assigned to D.C. as per the 23rd Amendment. This leaves D.C.'s weighting on the Presidency perpetually at the minimum. Currently, that's 3 electors which then get assigned to D.C., leaving 435 electors to assign to various States.
First, one elector is assigned to each of the 50 States. This 'floor' was necessary at the time of the writing of the Constitution, to ensure largely divided States to feel that, regardless of their population, they would never be put in a situation where they had no Congressional or electing power. This leaves 385 electors to assign.
The Electoral College assignment from here is done equivalently to Congressional seat assignments, using what's known as the Method of Equal Proportions. As per Wikipedia, which explains it far better than I can, "The apportionment methodology currently used is the method of equal proportions,[1][18][19][20] so called because it guarantees that no additional transfer of a seat (from one state to another) will reduce the ratio between the numbers of persons per representative in any two states.[21] The method of equal proportions minimizes the percentage differences in the populations of the congressional districts."
Moving past the jargon!
The first round of assignments take place, with the formula here. A(1) means the Priority per State for elector 1, and P is the State's population. This is done for all States, and the highest A(1) receives the electoral vote. This is directly proportional to the highest populated State for the first round.
After this, votes are doled out with the following formula, where A(n+1) talks about the hypothetical new Seat. n+1 indicates how many seats would be had by the State if they win the round, and n indicates how many seats are already had based on the rounds which have taken place. For example, after the first vote has been assigned to, say, California (the largest populated State), California's Priority would be A(2) = [square root of ( 1 / (1 + 2))] * the Priority from the 1st seat's round.
This is repeated until all 385 votes are assigned to the States.
I know it seems absurd, but it's actually a very clever way to (relatively speaking) evenly distribute power, not penalizing States too much for having smaller populations, and not rewarding States too much for having larger ones.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Re: the earlier posts....I've had to come to the conclusion that the Electoral College is crooked. How did it get that way? Whose math is this and how did someone decide it was fair to do this to people?
From Slate: "The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote."
Kat, there are some mathematics involved that seem complicated on the surface, but keep in mind that a floor and ceiling to proportional power were critical in the eyes of the drafters of the Constitution. These were largely divided States who needed to be assured that one State's power could never be so low as to be immaterial, and never so high as to make others irrelevant. I'll try my best (aided by some wonderful Wikipedia information and graphics) to explain.
The number of Electoral College votes is 538. Of those:
100 are for two senators per State, leaving 438.
A simulation of the assignment of electoral votes (States only - D.C. is not eligible) then determines the lowest number of electors a State would win, and that quantity of electors is assigned to D.C. as per the 23rd Amendment. This leaves D.C.'s weighting on the Presidency perpetually at the minimum. Currently, that's 3 electors which then get assigned to D.C., leaving 435 electors to assign to various States.
First, one elector is assigned to each of the 50 States. This 'floor' was necessary at the time of the writing of the Constitution, to ensure largely divided States to feel that, regardless of their population, they would never be put in a situation where they had no Congressional or electing power. This leaves 385 electors to assign.
The Electoral College assignment from here is done equivalently to Congressional seat assignments, using what's known as the Method of Equal Proportions. As per Wikipedia, which explains it far better than I can, "The apportionment methodology currently used is the method of equal proportions,[1][18][19][20] so called because it guarantees that no additional transfer of a seat (from one state to another) will reduce the ratio between the numbers of persons per representative in any two states.[21] The method of equal proportions minimizes the percentage differences in the populations of the congressional districts."
Moving past the jargon!
The first round of assignments take place, with the formula here. A(1) means the Priority per State for elector 1, and P is the State's population. This is done for all States, and the highest A(1) receives the electoral vote. This is directly proportional to the highest populated State for the first round.
After this, votes are doled out with the following formula, where A(n+1) talks about the hypothetical new Seat. n+1 indicates how many seats would be had by the State if they win the round, and n indicates how many seats are already had based on the rounds which have taken place. For example, after the first vote has been assigned to, say, California (the largest populated State), California's Priority would be A(2) = [square root of ( 1 / (1 + 2))] * the Priority from the 1st seat's round.
This is repeated until all 385 votes are assigned to the States.
I know it seems absurd, but it's actually a very clever way to (relatively speaking) evenly distribute power, not penalizing States too much for having smaller populations, and not rewarding States too much for having larger ones.
Right....but it doesn't work. The vote allocation isn't accurate/fair.
You can't tell me that it is fair that Clinton had 3 million more votes and still lost. Bush/Gore was bad enough at 500,000 votes
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Re: the earlier posts....I've had to come to the conclusion that the Electoral College is crooked. How did it get that way? Whose math is this and how did someone decide it was fair to do this to people?
From Slate: "The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote."
The straight up Popular vote is an idea whose time has surely come. No other Democracy employs such a profoundly stupid system as the electoral college. It will not be missed. The primary system is sorta effed as well, with the endless campaigns. It should be just like France's voting.
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
benjs, I have the greatest respect for math whizzes and you made my eyes glaze over because I'm not one. I don't understand it and if that's the system, I have to agree with Gern that it has a big problem in today's world. Any thoughts on why it wouldn't be ok to just have an election by popular vote? That wouldn't favor one party over another, would it?
Re: the earlier posts....I've had to come to the conclusion that the Electoral College is crooked. How did it get that way? Whose math is this and how did someone decide it was fair to do this to people?
From Slate: "The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote."
Kat, there are some mathematics involved that seem complicated on the surface, but keep in mind that a floor and ceiling to proportional power were critical in the eyes of the drafters of the Constitution. These were largely divided States who needed to be assured that one State's power could never be so low as to be immaterial, and never so high as to make others irrelevant. I'll try my best (aided by some wonderful Wikipedia information and graphics) to explain.
The number of Electoral College votes is 538. Of those:
100 are for two senators per State, leaving 438.
A simulation of the assignment of electoral votes (States only - D.C. is not eligible) then determines the lowest number of electors a State would win, and that quantity of electors is assigned to D.C. as per the 23rd Amendment. This leaves D.C.'s weighting on the Presidency perpetually at the minimum. Currently, that's 3 electors which then get assigned to D.C., leaving 435 electors to assign to various States.
First, one elector is assigned to each of the 50 States. This 'floor' was necessary at the time of the writing of the Constitution, to ensure largely divided States to feel that, regardless of their population, they would never be put in a situation where they had no Congressional or electing power. This leaves 385 electors to assign.
The Electoral College assignment from here is done equivalently to Congressional seat assignments, using what's known as the Method of Equal Proportions. As per Wikipedia, which explains it far better than I can, "The apportionment methodology currently used is the method of equal proportions,[1][18][19][20] so called because it guarantees that no additional transfer of a seat (from one state to another) will reduce the ratio between the numbers of persons per representative in any two states.[21] The method of equal proportions minimizes the percentage differences in the populations of the congressional districts."
Moving past the jargon!
The first round of assignments take place, with the formula here. A(1) means the Priority per State for elector 1, and P is the State's population. This is done for all States, and the highest A(1) receives the electoral vote. This is directly proportional to the highest populated State for the first round.
After this, votes are doled out with the following formula, where A(n+1) talks about the hypothetical new Seat. n+1 indicates how many seats would be had by the State if they win the round, and n indicates how many seats are already had based on the rounds which have taken place. For example, after the first vote has been assigned to, say, California (the largest populated State), California's Priority would be A(2) = [square root of ( 1 / (1 + 2))] * the Priority from the 1st seat's round.
This is repeated until all 385 votes are assigned to the States.
I know it seems absurd, but it's actually a very clever way to (relatively speaking) evenly distribute power, not penalizing States too much for having smaller populations, and not rewarding States too much for having larger ones.
Right....but it doesn't work. The vote allocation isn't accurate/fair.
You can't tell me that it is fair that Clinton had 3 million more votes and still lost. Bush/Gore was bad enough at 500,000 votes
I can absolutely tell you that it's fair. The system is functioning exactly as designed, ensuring that each State's voting power has a mandatory floor and ceiling. The only thing that could be done without stripping adherence to the Constitution would be to change the "all or none" model when a State's votes come in with a split outcome. If California voted 40% for Republican and 60% for Democrats, and was assigned ten electoral votes - I feel that Republicans should receive 4 electoral votes, and Democrats should receive 6. As it stands today, Democrats would have received 10. As far as I know, there's nothing in the Constitution that mandates this policy.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
benjs, I have the greatest respect for math whizzes and you made my eyes glaze over because I'm not one. I don't understand it and if that's the system, I have to agree with Gern that it has a big problem in today's world. Any thoughts on why it wouldn't be ok to just have an election by popular vote? That wouldn't favor one party over another, would it?
I'm a math wiz as well and while I understand how the EC works and why it was enacted originally, today I call bs on the theory that "without the EC, elections would be decided only by New York City and Los Angeles because no one else would show up because their votes wouldn't count." If they don't show up, that's their own damn fault. With a popular vote, literally every vote counts.
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
That would also address the issue in states where "my vote won't matter anyway" because a state is heavily one side or the other. The current system keeps people from going out to vote because of that. It sounds more fair and we're supposed to be about equality, after all.
benjs, I have the greatest respect for math whizzes and you made my eyes glaze over because I'm not one. I don't understand it and if that's the system, I have to agree with Gern that it has a big problem in today's world. Any thoughts on why it wouldn't be ok to just have an election by popular vote? That wouldn't favor one party over another, would it?
The challenge has always been to ensure smaller States don't lose all of their power, even if their population is low compared to others.
Wyoming, for example, has a population under 600,000. California, on the other hand, has over 38,000,000. The total US population is around 320,000,000, which means with a popular vote held today, California would have right to up to 12% of all voting power, while Wyoming would have a right to up to just under 0.2%. As America is urbanized, predominantly rural environments like Wyoming are destined to become an even smaller percentage of American population over time, so the question becomes: how do you break a promise made via the Constitution to Wyoming, that they will perpetually have a voice at the table, and a say in the direction of the country? I honestly don't think it's possible with a purely popular vote, and would love to be proven wrong.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Re: the earlier posts....I've had to come to the conclusion that the Electoral College is crooked. How did it get that way? Whose math is this and how did someone decide it was fair to do this to people?
From Slate: "The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote."
Kat, there are some mathematics involved that seem complicated on the surface, but keep in mind that a floor and ceiling to proportional power were critical in the eyes of the drafters of the Constitution. These were largely divided States who needed to be assured that one State's power could never be so low as to be immaterial, and never so high as to make others irrelevant. I'll try my best (aided by some wonderful Wikipedia information and graphics) to explain.
The number of Electoral College votes is 538. Of those:
100 are for two senators per State, leaving 438.
A simulation of the assignment of electoral votes (States only - D.C. is not eligible) then determines the lowest number of electors a State would win, and that quantity of electors is assigned to D.C. as per the 23rd Amendment. This leaves D.C.'s weighting on the Presidency perpetually at the minimum. Currently, that's 3 electors which then get assigned to D.C., leaving 435 electors to assign to various States.
First, one elector is assigned to each of the 50 States. This 'floor' was necessary at the time of the writing of the Constitution, to ensure largely divided States to feel that, regardless of their population, they would never be put in a situation where they had no Congressional or electing power. This leaves 385 electors to assign.
The Electoral College assignment from here is done equivalently to Congressional seat assignments, using what's known as the Method of Equal Proportions. As per Wikipedia, which explains it far better than I can, "The apportionment methodology currently used is the method of equal proportions,[1][18][19][20] so called because it guarantees that no additional transfer of a seat (from one state to another) will reduce the ratio between the numbers of persons per representative in any two states.[21] The method of equal proportions minimizes the percentage differences in the populations of the congressional districts."
Moving past the jargon!
The first round of assignments take place, with the formula here. A(1) means the Priority per State for elector 1, and P is the State's population. This is done for all States, and the highest A(1) receives the electoral vote. This is directly proportional to the highest populated State for the first round.
After this, votes are doled out with the following formula, where A(n+1) talks about the hypothetical new Seat. n+1 indicates how many seats would be had by the State if they win the round, and n indicates how many seats are already had based on the rounds which have taken place. For example, after the first vote has been assigned to, say, California (the largest populated State), California's Priority would be A(2) = [square root of ( 1 / (1 + 2))] * the Priority from the 1st seat's round.
This is repeated until all 385 votes are assigned to the States.
I know it seems absurd, but it's actually a very clever way to (relatively speaking) evenly distribute power, not penalizing States too much for having smaller populations, and not rewarding States too much for having larger ones.
Right....but it doesn't work. The vote allocation isn't accurate/fair.
You can't tell me that it is fair that Clinton had 3 million more votes and still lost. Bush/Gore was bad enough at 500,000 votes
I think this is more the result of scotus gutting the Voter Rights Act, voter oppression, Citizen's United, and gerrymandering districts than it is the electoral college. Looking forward to scotus hearing WI Gerrymandering case.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
benjs, I have the greatest respect for math whizzes and you made my eyes glaze over because I'm not one. I don't understand it and if that's the system, I have to agree with Gern that it has a big problem in today's world. Any thoughts on why it wouldn't be ok to just have an election by popular vote? That wouldn't favor one party over another, would it?
I'm a math wiz as well and while I understand how the EC works and why it was enacted originally, today I call bs on the theory that "without the EC, elections would be decided only by New York City and Los Angeles because no one else would show up because their votes wouldn't count." If they don't show up, that's their own damn fault. With a popular vote, literally every vote counts.
This isn't about people "not showing up because their votes wouldn't count": this is about the fact that as per my last post - if every single Wyoming resident showed up to vote (including those too young or old to vote), they would still only hold 0.2% of the votes of the country. Hell, if Wyoming voted fully, and only half of the rest of the country voted - they'd only hold 0.4%!
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
benjs, I have the greatest respect for math whizzes and you made my eyes glaze over because I'm not one. I don't understand it and if that's the system, I have to agree with Gern that it has a big problem in today's world. Any thoughts on why it wouldn't be ok to just have an election by popular vote? That wouldn't favor one party over another, would it?
The challenge has always been to ensure smaller States don't lose all of their power, even if their population is low compared to others.
Wyoming, for example, has a population under 600,000. California, on the other hand, has over 38,000,000. The total US population is around 320,000,000, which means with a popular vote held today, California would have right to up to 12% of all voting power, while Wyoming would have a right to up to just under 0.2%. As America is urbanized, predominantly rural environments like Wyoming are destined to become an even smaller percentage of American population over time, so the question becomes: how do you break a promise made via the Constitution to Wyoming, that they will perpetually have a voice at the table, and a say in the direction of the country? I honestly don't think it's possible with a purely popular vote, and would love to be proven wrong.
Both states operate under a winner-take-all basis in the EC. California has 10.23% of electoral votes (55/538) and Wyoming has 0.56% (3/538). Apples. Oranges.
I just went to Breitbart to get their spin. His base loves him even more after this.
His base, his supporters, people who voted for him should be embarrassed. He is a spoiled petulant narcissistic child who is doing one thing and one thing only.....embarrassing America.
SAD!
Yup. It's pretty confounding. One of America's problems is that its population is so divided in its viewpoint/perspective/mindset/IQ/morals ... Seriously, I don't see how it will be possible to close that divide at all, or even to stop it from growing bigger, if Trump's base is okay with shit like this. To me, that seems like an unbreachable gap that can't and in fact should NOT be closed if it means the non-Trump supporters are expected to be more tolerant of that kind of bullshit. Trump and Trump's base really doesn't leave any room for reasonable compromise at all. Their position is just too far out there for others to be expected to soften towards them or even to bother with an attempt at trying to see anything eye-to-eye. It's extremely frustrating just to be watching that from the outside. As I've said before, I can't even imagine how frustrating and hopeless it must feel to actually be an American and consider this impossible situation.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
benjs, I have the greatest respect for math whizzes and you made my eyes glaze over because I'm not one. I don't understand it and if that's the system, I have to agree with Gern that it has a big problem in today's world. Any thoughts on why it wouldn't be ok to just have an election by popular vote? That wouldn't favor one party over another, would it?
The challenge has always been to ensure smaller States don't lose all of their power, even if their population is low compared to others.
Wyoming, for example, has a population under 600,000. California, on the other hand, has over 38,000,000. The total US population is around 320,000,000, which means with a popular vote held today, California would have right to up to 12% of all voting power, while Wyoming would have a right to up to just under 0.2%. As America is urbanized, predominantly rural environments like Wyoming are destined to become an even smaller percentage of American population over time, so the question becomes: how do you break a promise made via the Constitution to Wyoming, that they will perpetually have a voice at the table, and a say in the direction of the country? I honestly don't think it's possible with a purely popular vote, and would love to be proven wrong.
Both states operate under a winner-take-all basis in the EC. California has 10.23% of electoral votes (55/538) and Wyoming has 0.56% (3/538). Apples. Oranges.
The problem becomes votes per electoral vote. CA gets screwed there.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
benjs, I have the greatest respect for math whizzes and you made my eyes glaze over because I'm not one. I don't understand it and if that's the system, I have to agree with Gern that it has a big problem in today's world. Any thoughts on why it wouldn't be ok to just have an election by popular vote? That wouldn't favor one party over another, would it?
The challenge has always been to ensure smaller States don't lose all of their power, even if their population is low compared to others.
Wyoming, for example, has a population under 600,000. California, on the other hand, has over 38,000,000. The total US population is around 320,000,000, which means with a popular vote held today, California would have right to up to 12% of all voting power, while Wyoming would have a right to up to just under 0.2%. As America is urbanized, predominantly rural environments like Wyoming are destined to become an even smaller percentage of American population over time, so the question becomes: how do you break a promise made via the Constitution to Wyoming, that they will perpetually have a voice at the table, and a say in the direction of the country? I honestly don't think it's possible with a purely popular vote, and would love to be proven wrong.
Both states operate under a winner-take-all basis in the EC. California has 10.23% of electoral votes (55/538) and Wyoming has 0.56% (3/538). Apples. Oranges.
I'm not sure what point you're making.
Today is Electoral College, Winner Takes All per State. My proposal is to proportionally allocate Electoral College Votes to directly mirror how the population votes within the State, so that a maximum of 49.9% of voters who could today be ignored because of Winner Takes All, tomorrow could have a voice. The Popular Vote, with such a disparity between the highest and lowest populations in the States, is certain to leave LA and NY with high representation in politics, and entire States like Wyoming with next to nil (when they're already only minimally represented). And once again, with the urbanization of America, rural States would be destined to further decrease their representation in politics if there's a direct proportionality to population alone. Not to mention that, as stated above, this is Constitutionally mandated. You thought the fight for abandoning gerrymandering was bad - wait until a vote to pivot to the Popular Vote is brought forward.
This is not apples and oranges, this is a comparison of valid competing ways to run a Presidential election.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I'm sorry that people in (insert red state here) are stupid and so easily swayed by shiny objects. Real AmeriKKKa indeed. Abolish the Electoral College.
Your country needs rural states that produce food. Those states need a voice. The popular vote doesn't work so well for such states. If they are to hold value, then their voice and needs must be accounted for.
Trump should have lost by 30 million votes. Losing the popular vote by 3 million is a victory... and very revealing of a daft general public.
Comments
From Slate: "The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html
www.headstonesband.com
https://twitter.com/leannenaramore/status/880466261960007680
my issues with the electoral college is in most states the votes have to all go for one candidate. I think more states should break them down by areas somehow although I'm sure that would get drawn up to benefit certain parties. In Pennsylvania Trump won based on the rural areas (in fairness most years Dems win based on the urban areas) but all of our states electoral college votes went to Trump. I think it's much more unfair on a state-by-state and area-by-area based for the large states. You could live in a district that votes 98% for one candidate but still not get any electoral votes based on the rest of the state. to me that is a bit out of whack.
Definitely not the will of the people any more.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
SAD!
True. Incredibly sad, but true.
2003 - 6/18 - Chicago, IL
2006 - 5/22 - Auburn Hills, MI
2007 - 8/5 - Chicago, IL
2015 - 9/26 - New York, NY
2016 - 4/16 - Greenville, SC; 8/20 - Chicago, IL; 8/22 - Chicago, IL
2018 - 8/18 - Chicago, IL; 8/20 - Chicago, IL
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=3045
The number of Electoral College votes is 538. Of those:
100 are for two senators per State, leaving 438.
A simulation of the assignment of electoral votes (States only - D.C. is not eligible) then determines the lowest number of electors a State would win, and that quantity of electors is assigned to D.C. as per the 23rd Amendment. This leaves D.C.'s weighting on the Presidency perpetually at the minimum. Currently, that's 3 electors which then get assigned to D.C., leaving 435 electors to assign to various States.
First, one elector is assigned to each of the 50 States. This 'floor' was necessary at the time of the writing of the Constitution, to ensure largely divided States to feel that, regardless of their population, they would never be put in a situation where they had no Congressional or electing power. This leaves 385 electors to assign.
The Electoral College assignment from here is done equivalently to Congressional seat assignments, using what's known as the Method of Equal Proportions. As per Wikipedia, which explains it far better than I can, "The apportionment methodology currently used is the method of equal proportions,[1][18][19][20] so called because it guarantees that no additional transfer of a seat (from one state to another) will reduce the ratio between the numbers of persons per representative in any two states.[21] The method of equal proportions minimizes the percentage differences in the populations of the congressional districts."
Moving past the jargon!
The first round of assignments take place, with the formula here. A(1) means the Priority per State for elector 1, and P is the State's population. This is done for all States, and the highest A(1) receives the electoral vote. This is directly proportional to the highest populated State for the first round.
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/dd342b4514c54dfb31964bca3e5725ed7d14e614
After this, votes are doled out with the following formula, where A(n+1) talks about the hypothetical new Seat. n+1 indicates how many seats would be had by the State if they win the round, and n indicates how many seats are already had based on the rounds which have taken place. For example, after the first vote has been assigned to, say, California (the largest populated State), California's Priority would be A(2) = [square root of ( 1 / (1 + 2))] * the Priority from the 1st seat's round.
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/5c8cfbec4453698e84b14b86c67af54df33f72b7
This is repeated until all 385 votes are assigned to the States.
I know it seems absurd, but it's actually a very clever way to (relatively speaking) evenly distribute power, not penalizing States too much for having smaller populations, and not rewarding States too much for having larger ones.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
You can't tell me that it is fair that Clinton had 3 million more votes and still lost. Bush/Gore was bad enough at 500,000 votes
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The primary system is sorta effed as well, with the endless campaigns. It should be just like France's voting.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Wyoming, for example, has a population under 600,000. California, on the other hand, has over 38,000,000. The total US population is around 320,000,000, which means with a popular vote held today, California would have right to up to 12% of all voting power, while Wyoming would have a right to up to just under 0.2%. As America is urbanized, predominantly rural environments like Wyoming are destined to become an even smaller percentage of American population over time, so the question becomes: how do you break a promise made via the Constitution to Wyoming, that they will perpetually have a voice at the table, and a say in the direction of the country? I honestly don't think it's possible with a purely popular vote, and would love to be proven wrong.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Today is Electoral College, Winner Takes All per State.
My proposal is to proportionally allocate Electoral College Votes to directly mirror how the population votes within the State, so that a maximum of 49.9% of voters who could today be ignored because of Winner Takes All, tomorrow could have a voice.
The Popular Vote, with such a disparity between the highest and lowest populations in the States, is certain to leave LA and NY with high representation in politics, and entire States like Wyoming with next to nil (when they're already only minimally represented). And once again, with the urbanization of America, rural States would be destined to further decrease their representation in politics if there's a direct proportionality to population alone. Not to mention that, as stated above, this is Constitutionally mandated. You thought the fight for abandoning gerrymandering was bad - wait until a vote to pivot to the Popular Vote is brought forward.
This is not apples and oranges, this is a comparison of valid competing ways to run a Presidential election.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Real AmeriKKKa indeed.
Abolish the Electoral College.
Trump should have lost by 30 million votes. Losing the popular vote by 3 million is a victory... and very revealing of a daft general public.