Hey Bernie, you only THOUGHT you won New Hampshire........

You picked WY for the comparison because it is our most underpopulated state, with only one Congressional seat for the entire state. Therefore it gets 3 electoral votes (as do MT, ND, SD, VT and DE). Originally Posted by lustylad

Of course I am going to pick the most disparate ones. The poster made the claim that it was pretty evenly matched by population, and I was demonstrating how absolutely untrue that claim is.

If this is such a big deal, why don't you argue for abolishing the US Senate? The discrepancy is much greater there. Wyoming has less than 300k people for each US Senator while Texas has almost 14 million. That means a Wyoming vote is 47 times as potent as a Texas vote. How fucking unfair!

This is a total red herring. I'm not arguing, nor have I argued, that the states should not have some form of equal representation at the federal level. We don't all vote for the senators of each state, those senators represent those states. We all vote for the president of the US. The POTUS represents us all. Entirely different situations.

It's also besides the point. We weren't talking about senators. Even if I thought senators should be done away with (I don't) that has no bearing on my argument as to whether or not we should do away with the electoral college.

Personally I like the electoral college formula. It's clever, balanced and unique. It's rooted in federalism and linked to our bicameral legislative system. It's elastic (updated for each census) and designed to last. And it's American. So anyone who opposes it must be un-American!

This argument amounts to nothing more than "it's the way it's always been done! 'Murica!"

in essence my statements are supportive of keeping with our republic and to protect states and the individuals in those states with the electoral college. the concept of fair has never been discussed by me Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

If you don't think you are talking about fairness to the smaller states and the individuals of those states, then I am not sure how to proceed. It's like we are speaking different languages.

Of course I am going to pick the most disparate ones. The poster made the claim that it was pretty evenly matched by population, and I was demonstrating how absolutely untrue that claim is.


This is a total red herring. I'm not arguing, nor have I argued, that the states should not have some form of equal representation at the federal level. We don't all vote for the senators of each state, those senators represent those states. We all vote for the president of the US. The POTUS represents us all. Entirely different situations.

It's also besides the point. We weren't talking about senators. Even if I thought senators should be done away with (I don't) that has no bearing on my argument as to whether or not we should do away with the electoral college.


This argument amounts to nothing more than "it's the way it's always been done! 'Murica!"


If you don't think you are talking about fairness to the smaller states and the individuals of those states, then I am not sure how to proceed. It's like we are speaking different languages. Originally Posted by eatfibo

It's different brains most likely or educations

Fair most likely was an oblique consideration in the organization of the country, but tempered with many other considerations. I'm talking about a republican form of government, you want your feeling of fair

What's not to understand?

"fairness" is the common conversational term for "equal protection."

Of course I am going to pick the most disparate ones. The poster made the claim that it was pretty evenly matched by population, and I was demonstrating how absolutely untrue that claim is.

Actually, my claim was that electoral votes are "doled out roughly according to each state's population." Which is true. 438 are based on the latest census, while the remaining 100 electoral votes are doled out two per state. The latter is what skews the weighting of each vote somewhat in favor of the under-populated states. But you're still making a big fuss over nothing. There are six under-populated states with 3 votes each. That's a total of 18 out of 538 – or 3.3%. Methinks you need to find something more significant to bitch about. Or else admit that you're really just pissed off about Bush beating Gore.


This is a total red herring....It's also besides the point. We weren't talking about senators.

It's not beside the point at all. If you are genuinely concerned about the dilution of voting power in high- versus low-population states, then the US Senate is a much bigger offender than the electoral college.


This argument amounts to nothing more than "it's the way it's always been done! 'Murica!"

Except that you left out the parts about it being clever, balanced, unique, elastic, built to last, rooted in federalism and linked to our bicameral legislative system. Originally Posted by eatfibo

How did this thread get off topic? Weren't we supposed to be talking about Hillary's coin flips and super-delegate cronies?

How did this thread get off topic? Originally Posted by lustylad

The HillariousNoMore apologists really "need" to divert the topic elsewhere.