- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
History discussion: has America always had an uneven number of electorates per state?
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:02 am
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:02 am
Have we always had a disproportionate electoral college vote, where they use a formula based on population to skew how “important” each state is? I have no idea if we’ve done that since the 1700’s, but it definitely seems like it could be a Lyndon B. Johnson era policy that was recently started and we all accept as “the way things are”.
After thinking about how California and NYC are now heavily skewing the national voting percentage, and how I’m assuming they’ll eventually hold so many electoral college votes that they’ll render our “republic” system useless and virtually turn it into a straight democracy, I was thinking that it would be more rational to use an “each state gets one vote” system.
In that case, Trump would’ve won 33/17 in 2016 rather than 300-230, which I think is more representative of our nation as a whole. It makes no sense for California to get a huge number of electoral votes when that’s exactly what we’re trying to avoid. Thoughts?
After thinking about how California and NYC are now heavily skewing the national voting percentage, and how I’m assuming they’ll eventually hold so many electoral college votes that they’ll render our “republic” system useless and virtually turn it into a straight democracy, I was thinking that it would be more rational to use an “each state gets one vote” system.
In that case, Trump would’ve won 33/17 in 2016 rather than 300-230, which I think is more representative of our nation as a whole. It makes no sense for California to get a huge number of electoral votes when that’s exactly what we’re trying to avoid. Thoughts?
This post was edited on 10/27/20 at 9:03 am
10
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:04 am to Forever
It's a balance between the interests of pure population numbers and states.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:04 am to Forever
In a single word- yes.
AFAIK, there has always been one elector to represent each Congressional district. That's why the census is so important- to determine which states had population growth and need more representation, and which states lost population and need less.
AFAIK, there has always been one elector to represent each Congressional district. That's why the census is so important- to determine which states had population growth and need more representation, and which states lost population and need less.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:05 am to Forever
Yes, there have always been 1-3 states which had a disproportionately high percentage of all voters, which is why we have the EC to begin with.
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Massachusetts in the 1700s, states like New York in the 1800s, states like California in the 1900s. All of which were goddamn huge compared to most other states like Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, etc.
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Massachusetts in the 1700s, states like New York in the 1800s, states like California in the 1900s. All of which were goddamn huge compared to most other states like Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, etc.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:09 am to Forever
Yes the 550k people living in Wyoming should certainly get the same voting power as the 37.5 million people living in California.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:11 am to Ham Malone
quote:
Yes the 550k people living in Wyoming should certainly get the same voting power as the 37.5 million people living in California.
They don't. Find an adult to explain it to you.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:11 am to Ham Malone
They should. Just because you live in CA doesn't mean your opinion matters more than someone in Arkansas. Someone in San Francisco shouldn't outweigh the opinion of someone in the central valley.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:13 am to AUCE05
But muh popular vote!
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:13 am to Forever
quote:
and how I’m assuming they’ll eventually hold so many electoral college votes that they’ll render our “republic” system useless and virtually turn it into a straight democracy, I was thinking that it would be more rational to use an “each state gets one vote” system.
Dumb idea, and it doesn't make sense since both states are not growing enough to add electoral votes via additional House seats (and in New York's and possibly California's case, is losing them).
The only states gaining electoral votes in large quantities are Florida and Texas (and even that won't last forever).
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:14 am to Gray Tiger
quote:
They don't. Find an adult to explain it to you.
OP is proposing exactly that (each state gets one electoral vote).
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:17 am to AUCE05
Nice so you’re on the side of the popular vote, good to see some agreement around here 
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:19 am to Forever
Yes when the Constitution was written two plans are originally proposed for the way the legislature was going to be set up:
The Virginia plan which set up the legislature allocating delegates based on the state's population versus the New Jersey plan which divided number of delegates equally per State.
The delegates from the great state of Connecticut came up with something called “ The great compromise ”...
where they created a bicameral legislature. Where one house was set up according to delegates doled out by population called the House of Representatives...
and the other legislative house had a legislature set up with representatives evenly divided per state Called the Senate.
A pure bit of genius in human history in appointing a bicameral legislature in order to effectively meet the goals of proper checks and balances
The Virginia plan which set up the legislature allocating delegates based on the state's population versus the New Jersey plan which divided number of delegates equally per State.
The delegates from the great state of Connecticut came up with something called “ The great compromise ”...
where they created a bicameral legislature. Where one house was set up according to delegates doled out by population called the House of Representatives...
and the other legislative house had a legislature set up with representatives evenly divided per state Called the Senate.
A pure bit of genius in human history in appointing a bicameral legislature in order to effectively meet the goals of proper checks and balances
This post was edited on 10/27/20 at 11:11 am
Posted on 10/27/20 at 10:40 am to Ham Malone
quote:
Nice so you’re on the side of the popular vote, good to see some agreement around here
You do get popular vote. For state government.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 10:43 am to Forever
Are you a moron? Serious question
Posted on 10/27/20 at 10:43 am to claremontrich
quote:
A pure bit of genius in human history in appointing a bicameral legislature in order to effectively meet the goals of proper checks and balances
Posted on 10/27/20 at 10:50 am to Ham Malone
quote:
Yes the 550k people living in Wyoming should certainly get the same voting power as the 37.5 million people living in California.
The national popular vote is not relevant. The individual state popular votes are only relevant in that they assist the state governments in deciding which set of electors to send to the EC. The states each hold their own elections, and in those elections every citizen of that state has one equal vote.
There is not a federal election, except for the EC voting. In that election...the State of California has more than 18x the voting power of the State of Wyoming.
To the extent that 18x more power is not enough proportionally because of how populous CA is.... that may be true. But the solution to that is not ditching the system, its increasing the number of Representatives in the House (and thereby the total number of Electoral votes)
This post was edited on 10/27/20 at 10:53 am
Posted on 10/27/20 at 10:54 am to Indefatigable
quote:
But the solution to that is not ditching the system, its increasing the number of Representatives in the House (and thereby the total number of Electoral votes)
It would still be proportional to population though.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 11:00 am to Wally Sparks
quote:
It would still be proportional to population though.
Of course. But as it stands CA's EV total is 18X higher than WY's. I believe that California's population is almost 70x Wyoming's. We would have to add Electoral College votes in order to give CA enough EV's for it to actually be proportional without Wyoming going below the minimum number of 3.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 11:04 am to Indefatigable
Yes I agree with you, my post was in response to the OP who suggested that each state should get a single electoral college vote.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 11:05 am to claremontrich
quote:I always get a kick out of the folks who attribute some sort of godlike prescience to the Drafters of the Constitution, when (in fact) they were a collection of bright, experienced politicians who engaged in a LOT of old-time horse-trading.
The delegates from the great state of Connecticut came up with something called “ The great compromise ”...
This post was edited on 10/27/20 at 11:07 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News