Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6108
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:40 pm

This ^^^^^^^

Congress should NOT be artificially limited to 435 members, but should follow the earlier apportionment ratios. I’d love a 997 member House, a 9997 House is better. Give each member a secretary and chair on Mall and call it good.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:52 am

northstardc4m wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:

lugie wrote:
Except for those states that are vastly underrepresented in their electoral college votes. I don't think they see their rights as particularly "protected".

They're not really underrepresented in the Electoral College however since the number of their electoral votes is tied to their population.


That's where many you are making a mistake...

Since 1929 the population of each state does NOT increase or decrease the EC power of that state proportionally.

If it did following the original plan, there would be a massive change in EC votes.

If you hold WY and VT and DC (the smallest population representative "states") would get a minimum of 2 EC votes... that makes each EC worth about 325000 averaged over those 3.

So now, with 325000 per EC... rounded down 3/4 up 1/4... (existing EC in brackets).... (just so we are clear= < or =1.74=1, > or =1.75=2)

Top 5 states by populations:

California: 121 (55)
Texas: 89 (38)
Florida: 66 (29)
New York: 59 (29)
Pennsylvania 39 (20)

And from the bottom up:
DC, Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska: 2 (they all have 3 now)
Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana 3 (3)
Maine, New Hampshire 4 (4)
Idaho 5 (4)
West Virginia 5 (5)
Nebraska, New Mexico 6 (5)
Kansas 9 (6)

I think we see the problem... there should be about 1007 electoral college votes based on the minimum count method... assuming no one really pushes for PR, USVI American Samoa and the other territories to have proper representation...

Worse, if you follow George Washington's insistence... 30000/representative and vote... well multiply by 100.

Now if you reapportion the existing number (538) based on population under the *recommended* approtionment formula in the constitution... (14th amendment, but not required by law to follow the formula)

California gets 65
Texas gets 44
Florida gets 34

...

DC, Vermont, North Dakota and Wyoming get 1.

Interestingly that method does not change the outcome of the 2016 election, it just moves 3 EC from Trump to Clinton, not enough.

The apportionment was supposed to be done by every congress... until 1929 when they capped the total number and stopped following the formula laid out.


And here you are USA... call it anyway you want the Electoral College is NOT working as intended by your founders.

Is it working the way you want it to really today... that's up to you.

No, I didn't say it was proportional, just that they weren't "underrepresented" in the current framework. The largest populated states have the largest number of electoral votes. I would agree with you that the current cap on congressional seats and thus EC votes should be removed allowing for some better representation.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8515
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:45 am

DL717 wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
DLFREEBIRD wrote:



No we shouldn't think of the US in the context of individual countries. Cause that's not reality.

Your still not addressing, the problems with the EC, which is the winner takes all, canceling out the other votes. States with smaller populations like Wyoming and Alaska are over-represented.


As previously stated, two states already eliminated “winner takes all” because WTA has nothing to do with federal law. It is not part of the EC despite being a reality of the federal elections.

However it may be possible to change US law to make it a federal thing, thereby specifying how electors will be allocated.

Currently however, federal law simply does not regulate how states allocate electors. Federal determines how many electors not who gets them. I am not aware of any principled reasoning for this, I think some smarty pants at some point in US history took advantage of this loophole for the sake of his political party, and everybody ended up copying.


It’s a Right left to States due to the sovereignty component of how we are structure as a country. States can do whatever they want to determine how their Electors are allocated, be it all in or splitting them up. Electors assigned to a State are based on census population, plus one for each Senator. It’s why places like California want widespread citizenship for illegals. More electors.


When I read the constitution, it is not clear at all that this is the case. It seems more like it was overlooked or it was assumed what that meant. But maybe not, there may be context I am missing... do you have a source that backs up your argument?
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7289
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:32 pm

Shouldn't electors be voting off of their district and not their state? The constituents in the district elect the elector. Someone from suburban Ft. Worth will very likely vote differently than someone from inner Houston.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
VTKillarney
Posts: 1954
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:07 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
Shouldn't electors be voting off of their district and not their state? The constituents in the district elect the elector. Someone from suburban Ft. Worth will very likely vote differently than someone from inner Houston.

That's up to the state to decide. Federalism, you know.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2989
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:07 pm

PPVRA wrote:
DL717 wrote:
PPVRA wrote:

As previously stated, two states already eliminated “winner takes all” because WTA has nothing to do with federal law. It is not part of the EC despite being a reality of the federal elections.

However it may be possible to change US law to make it a federal thing, thereby specifying how electors will be allocated.

Currently however, federal law simply does not regulate how states allocate electors. Federal determines how many electors not who gets them. I am not aware of any principled reasoning for this, I think some smarty pants at some point in US history took advantage of this loophole for the sake of his political party, and everybody ended up copying.


It’s a Right left to States due to the sovereignty component of how we are structure as a country. States can do whatever they want to determine how their Electors are allocated, be it all in or splitting them up. Electors assigned to a State are based on census population, plus one for each Senator. It’s why places like California want widespread citizenship for illegals. More electors.


When I read the constitution, it is not clear at all that this is the case. It seems more like it was overlooked or it was assumed what that meant. But maybe not, there may be context I am missing... do you have a source that backs up your argument?

Whatever powers that are not specifically outlined in the constitution as being delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8515
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:49 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
DL717 wrote:

It’s a Right left to States due to the sovereignty component of how we are structure as a country. States can do whatever they want to determine how their Electors are allocated, be it all in or splitting them up. Electors assigned to a State are based on census population, plus one for each Senator. It’s why places like California want widespread citizenship for illegals. More electors.


When I read the constitution, it is not clear at all that this is the case. It seems more like it was overlooked or it was assumed what that meant. But maybe not, there may be context I am missing... do you have a source that backs up your argument?

Whatever powers that are not specifically outlined in the constitution as being delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states.


Actually, you don’t have to even go there:

Article II, Section I, Clause II

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.“

So the guarantee to state autonomy in allocating electors is explicit. It’s gonna take a constitutional amendment to change this from the federal level.

Nonetheless, I still see no principled reason for the winner takes all system. It’s purely a power grab by political parties and history seems to show this. It’s not an originalist or principled idea. The electoral college is, but not winner takes all.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ThePointblank, USPIT10L and 51 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos