The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#15,576
#15,576
RockyTop85 said:
California has about 20 times the population of Idaho. One vote in Idaho is essentially worth 4/2,000,000 or .000002. One vote in California is essentially worth 54/39,000,000 or .00000138, or .7 of one vote in Iowa. That’s what he’s saying.
Click to expand...

That is a California problem it sounds like because the census gives out the votes based on STATE records. If Idaho has more than California, it isn't the Federal system but state system.

The issue is that I think California and some of the large population states exaggerate their population. California may NOT have 20x the population of Idaho or they need to run their census better.

Now, one argument that you might have is that the Census may need to be taken more often.
 
#15,577
#15,577
volbound1700 said:
That is a California problem it sounds like because the census gives out the votes based on STATE records. If Idaho has more than California, it isn't the Federal system but state system.

The issue is that I think California and some of the large population states exaggerate their population. California may NOT have 20x the population of Idaho or they need to run their census better.

Now, one argument that you might have is that the Census may need to be taken more often.
Click to expand...
Not really. Remove the apportionment of votes tied to senate representation and the result more or less reverses and one Iowa vote = .7 of one California vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact and GroverCleveland
#15,578
#15,578
lawgator1 said:
1) Marchan is a state court judge, not a federal judge. The federal judiciary literally has nothing to do with this case.

2) Trump appointed a large number of federal judges, particularly appellate judges. As many of the latter in one term as Obama in two terms. He also appointed many trial court judges, 174 in his one term compared to 268 in Obama's two terms, so at as much higher rate than Obama.
Click to expand...
Regarding point 2.

Just more evidence Trump was working harder for the American people. Ensuring things here at home were of first priority. Unlike Obummer that put America last in all his decisions as he hates this country and believes us to be the root of all the worlds problems.

Thank you for your contribution today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyVolette
#15,579
#15,579
RockyTop85 said:
Not really. Remove the apportionment of votes tied to senate representation and the result more or less reverses and one Iowa vote = .7 of one California vote.
Click to expand...

Electoral College matches Congress, not the Senate.

Also California has, my assumption, a lot of non-US Citizens that probably get counted in their population. Non-Americans here to work for big Corporations, Entertainment industry, Illegal Immigrants, Legal Immigrants without Citizenship yet, etc.

Tennessee is behind on the game as well and probably deserves more than 11 votes but it isn't a problem with the Electoral System but rather the states.

California is notorious for allowing non-US Citizens to vote so you have that issue as well.
 
#15,580
#15,580
volbound1700 said:
Electoral College matches Congress, not the Senate.

Also California has, my assumption, a lot of non-US Citizens that probably get counted in their population. Non-Americans here to work for big Corporations, Entertainment industry, Illegal Immigrants, Legal Immigrants without Citizenship yet, etc.

Tennessee is behind on the game as well and probably deserves more than 11 votes but it isn't a problem with the Electoral System but rather the states.

California is notorious for allowing non-US Citizens to vote so you have that issue as well.
Click to expand...
en.m.wikipedia.org

United States Electoral College - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

“A state's number of electors equals the number of representatives plus two electors for the senators the state has in the United States Congress.”

Otherwise, how would Wyoming have 3 votes for only 500,000 people and Idaho gets only 4 for 1.9 million? Wyoming has only one representative in congress.
 
#15,581
#15,581
volbound1700 said:
They don't. California has 54 Electoral votes and Idaho has 4.

California has 13x the vote of Idaho.

I am not sure what you are on about with your soap box. I wouldn't want to live in a system of popular votes as only small pockets of the country would have representatives. Thank you Delaware for pushing for Electoral College.
Click to expand...


I should have been clearer in referring to the Electoral College (EC) votes for each Senator (two, per state).

Using your example of Idaho with 4 EC votes and California with 54 ...

The population of California is 39 million. The population of Idaho is 1.9 million.

The ratio you identified is about 13 to 1 in EC votes, but the difference in population is 20 to 1.

Thus, a voter in Idaho has more weight in voting for POTUS than a voter in California and there is no modern reason for it.
 
#15,582
#15,582
lawgator1 said:
I should have been clearer in referring to the Electoral College (EC) votes for each Senator (two, per state).

Using your example of Idaho with 4 EC votes and California with 54 ...

The population of California is 39 million. The population of Idaho is 1.9 million.

The ratio you identified is about 13 to 1 in EC votes, but the difference in population is 20 to 1.

Thus, a voter in Idaho has more weight in voting for POTUS than a voter in California and there is no modern reason for it.
Click to expand...

The issue about your vote "counting" is that if you state leaves heavily one way or the other, it doesn't really matter how you vote. For example, Democrats can't win Tennessee and Republicans can't win California so both states are written off.

States like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Arizona, and other swing states get all the attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyVolette, SpaceCoastVol and BernardKingGOAT
#15,583
#15,583
Septic said:
And that's a sad indictment on our election system. The electoral college is B.S.
Click to expand...
it's not BS, but it is becoming is irrelevant. The city populations will soon overwhelm the rest of the country, and what will be more relevant will be getting that demographic to vote for you. The politicians won't give a **** what the country folk want or need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel and davethevol
#15,584
#15,584
lawgator1 said:
The issue is that his vote in Montana is weighted substantially more than people voting in Florida, or Georgia, or New York, or pretty much anywhere else.
Click to expand...
This was designed, very deliberately, into the system. Yay for Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Alaska, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, MemphisVol77, Vol since 77 and 1 other person
#15,585
#15,585
lawgator1 said:
Not exactly.

Electoral College History | National Archives

www.archives.gov www.archives.gov

The electoral college was a compromise between a straight up popular vote and having Congress elect the President. I think any honest modern review would come to the conclusion that such a compromise is no longer needed and that it should be a simple popular vote.

Having said that, if the idea is to have a state like Idaho have the same voice as a state like Tennessee, or Florida, or California, in selecting a President I am certainly open to hearing what the logic would be on that, as I cannot fathom it now.
Click to expand...
Amend the Constitution. "Good luck with that!" - Flyover Country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#15,587
#15,587
volbound1700 said:
The issue about your vote "counting" is that if you state leaves heavily one way or the other, it doesn't really matter how you vote. For example, Democrats can't win Tennessee and Republicans can't win California so both states are written off.

States like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Arizona, and other swing states get all the attention.
Click to expand...


That in no way answers the point that two EC votes for each Senator warps the value of votes by persons within those states and gives people living in less populous states more of a say in who is POTUS than people in more populous states.

It is a permanent distortion of the math, premised upon a tremendously different set of concerns 230 years ago than exist today.
 
#15,589
#15,589
lawgator1 said:
That in no way answers the point that two EC votes for each Senator warps the value of votes by persons within those states and gives people living in less populous states more of a say in who is POTUS than people in more populous states.

It is a permanent distortion of the math, premised upon a tremendously different set of concerns 230 years ago than exist today.
Click to expand...
drivel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, LadyVolette and GroverCleveland
#15,590
#15,590
lawgator1 said:
I should have been clearer in referring to the Electoral College (EC) votes for each Senator (two, per state).

Using your example of Idaho with 4 EC votes and California with 54 ...

The population of California is 39 million. The population of Idaho is 1.9 million.

The ratio you identified is about 13 to 1 in EC votes, but the difference in population is 20 to 1.

Thus, a voter in Idaho has more weight in voting for POTUS than a voter in California and there is no modern reason for it.
Click to expand...

it's not a matter of modernity
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, StarRaider, Pennheel and 1 other person
#15,593
#15,593
lawgator1 said:
That in no way answers the point that two EC votes for each Senator warps the value of votes by persons within those states and gives people living in less populous states more of a say in who is POTUS than people in more populous states.

It is a permanent distortion of the math, premised upon a tremendously different set of concerns 230 years ago than exist today.
Click to expand...

It takes multiple states to even match California. I don't see the point of whining. New York and California (2 states) make up almost 1/4 of the total vote for President. System seems very oriented towards population now.

All I hear is someone whining because they don't win.

It is the same lame arguments that occur about Court Packing that people make because system didn't 100% do what they wanted it to do.

As stated, the main reason a vote doesn't count in California is because it is so left on the political radar that everyone knows they won't vote Republican EVER so their votes are already decided prior to election and are just seen as a hurdle for the Republicans to overcome (Republicans have Texas but it is still 20 points below California).
 
#15,599
#15,599
lawgator1 said:
Because .....
Click to expand...
We don't have mob rule in this country. I don't want Kalifornia and New York making decisions about what we do in Tennessee. It's bad enough that the libtards in Nashville can tell people in the rural areas what to do or not to do, and THAT is only going to get worse.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, MemphisVol77, StarRaider and 4 others
#15,600
#15,600
lawgator1 said:
Sure it is.

There is absolutely no reason, and has not been for well over a century, that a person in Idaho has roughly twice the power to select the President of the entire country as a person in California.
Click to expand...
It’s Constitutional. There is your reason. As a lawyer do you not take an oath to follow the law? Also in your education did you learn how to make changes to that document?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top