The electoral college dilemma

[AlaCowboy]

Nov 16, 2018 23:33:50 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 16, 2018 22:58:54 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Walter, your response is as leaky as a sieve. As a states population increases, so does their number of representatives, and thus their numbers in the Electoral College increases in proportion. For instance, Alabama is projected to lose either one or two representatives after the next census and the following reapportionment, and some other state will increase their number. The number of votes in the Electoral College is fixed, and as a states population increase, their power in the EC, and in Washington, increases as well.
The Electoral College system was chosen to fairly balance power between the total population and the states. This same idea was the reason for Congress to be split between the House and the Senate. The House is representative of the people, and elected at the local level. The Senate is representative of the states, which is why the state governments originally appointed Senators.

Ponder this then
As a states population diminishes to a point where they have only one represenative, the electoral power of the state increases.
How is that a good thing?
Let us take the concept to a ridiculous but logical extreme.
If everyone vacates 49 states, leaving just one voter in each state, then those 49 voters remaining will dictate every Potus. Does that make sense?
That is, conceptually what I am discussing.

Those 49 states would then have a total of 147 Electoral College votes. If 270 votes are required to have a majority, how can those states elect the president? Is that the newest new math you're using?

[Walter]

Nov 17, 2018 20:40:32 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Nov 16, 2018 23:33:50 GMT -5 Walter said:

Ponder this then
As a states population diminishes to a point where they have only one represenative, the electoral power of the state increases.
How is that a good thing?
Let us take the concept to a ridiculous but logical extreme.
If everyone vacates 49 states, leaving just one voter in each state, then those 49 voters remaining will dictate every Potus. Does that make sense?
That is, conceptually what I am discussing.

Those 49 states would then have a total of 147 Electoral College votes. If 270 votes are required to have a majority, how can those states elect the president? Is that the newest new math you're using?

Aw, hell. You're right. That's what I get for not working the math.
Reworking the math, it turns out the absolute worst it could be is roughly a 60%-40% landslide in the popular vote with the minority vote prevailing in the EC.
As far-fetched as that scenario is, I now feel better about the EC.

[AlaCowboy]

Nov 17, 2018 20:58:43 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 17, 2018 20:40:32 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Those 49 states would then have a total of 147 Electoral College votes. If 270 votes are required to have a majority, how can those states elect the president? Is that the newest new math you're using?

Aw, hell. You're right. That's what I get for not working the math.
Reworking the math, it turns out the absolute worst it could be is roughly a 60%-40% landslide in the popular vote with the minority vote prevailing in the EC.
As far-fetched as that scenario is, I now feel better about the EC.

There. That's better.

[Deleted]

Nov 17, 2018 0:17:04 GMT -5 drjensen said:

In California, it is obvious the Dems are in the majority but that is not the case everywhere. Take Oklahoma for instance, I don't think a single county voted democrat in '16. Other areas of the country are the same. The power at the polls lies with the Independents, no one wants to acknowledge that but its the truth, however, the Independents have no organization in the running of our government and the problem we have in America is politics hinders the machinery of government.

A Democrat won a house seat in Oklahoma this year.

[AlaCowboy]

Nov 18, 2018 8:59:13 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

Nov 17, 2018 0:17:04 GMT -5 drjensen said:

In California, it is obvious the Dems are in the majority but that is not the case everywhere. Take Oklahoma for instance, I don't think a single county voted democrat in '16. Other areas of the country are the same. The power at the polls lies with the Independents, no one wants to acknowledge that but its the truth, however, the Independents have no organization in the running of our government and the problem we have in America is politics hinders the machinery of government.

A Democrat won a house seat in Oklahoma this year.

He mentioned the 2016 election, not 2018.

[Deleted]

Nov 18, 2018 19:35:25 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Nov 18, 2018 8:59:13 GMT -5 @cwgbuckeyes35 said:

A Democrat won a house seat in Oklahoma this year.

He mentioned the 2016 election, not 2018.

I know I was trying to show how much has changed in 2 years