• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EC representation

Grand Mal

Grand Mal

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
55,590
Reaction score
39,981
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Correct me if I'm wrong. The electoral college reprersentation for each state is the number of federal senators (2 for each state) plus the number of representatives in the House, The controversy is about the number of seats in the house. The state with the lowest population is Wyoming with just under 600,000. Let's call it 600.000. That gives thrm one seat in the house so, logically, each state should get one seat for every 600,000 population, right? If we're talking about representative government? That would give Texas 45 seats in the House, but they only have 36, I'm sure this disparity shows up for every populous state. Why are people who live in large states counted less? Should large states be broken up or small states combined or proportional representation adopted?
It's a very odd system, seems to say that rural voters count for more than urban ones. Or maybe I'm just too wired to the one-man-one-vote concept.
 
It's because the total number of Representatives was capped at 435, regardless of population increases. That should be revisited.
 
Harshaw said:
It's because the total number of Representatives was capped at 435, regardless of population increases. That should be revisited.
Click to expand...

That could add over 100 congressmen, that's too many
 
Grand Mal said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. The electoral college reprersentation for each state is the number of federal senators (2 for each state) plus the number of representatives in the House, The controversy is about the number of seats in the house. The state with the lowest population is Wyoming with just under 600,000. Let's call it 600.000. That gives thrm one seat in the house so, logically, each state should get one seat for every 600,000 population, right? If we're talking about representative government? That would give Texas 45 seats in the House, but they only have 36, I'm sure this disparity shows up for every populous state. Why are people who live in large states counted less? Should large states be broken up or small states combined or proportional representation adopted?
It's a very odd system, seems to say that rural voters count for more than urban ones. Or maybe I'm just too wired to the one-man-one-vote concept.
Click to expand...

That is one of the checks and balance mechanisms to protect smaller groups from majority over reach. It is one of the conditions agreed in forming the Union. It seems quite a reasonable and is a widely used instrument in constitutions.
 
Harshaw said:
It could add more than that. Why is it too many?
Click to expand...

I don't see any problems in the current system nor do I see any added benefit from adding 100-120 representatives. Creating a larger federal govt solely for the sake of "fairness" seems like a waste of time and money.
 
Crovax said:
I don't see any problems in the current system nor do I see any added benefit from adding 100-120 representatives. Creating a larger federal govt solely for the sake of "fairness" seems like a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

Sure there's benefit. The smaller number of people represented, the more responsive a representative can be. Making the government better function the way it's supposed to is worth it.
 
Harshaw said:
Sure there's benefit. The smaller number of people represented, the more responsive a representative can be. Making the government better function the way it's supposed to is worth it.
Click to expand...

How much of a difference would it make from a representative that has 750,000 constituents to one that has 600,000? Not much that I could see, with the major downside of having that voice carries significantly less power.
 
Crovax said:
How much of a difference would it make from a representative that has 750,000 constituents to one that has 600,000? Not much that I could see, with the major downside of having that voice carries significantly less power.
Click to expand...

Less power?
 
Grand Mal said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. The electoral college reprersentation for each state is the number of federal senators (2 for each state) plus the number of representatives in the House, The controversy is about the number of seats in the house. The state with the lowest population is Wyoming with just under 600,000. Let's call it 600.000. That gives thrm one seat in the house so, logically, each state should get one seat for every 600,000 population, right? If we're talking about representative government? That would give Texas 45 seats in the House, but they only have 36, I'm sure this disparity shows up for every populous state. Why are people who live in large states counted less? Should large states be broken up or small states combined or proportional representation adopted?
It's a very odd system, seems to say that rural voters count for more than urban ones. Or maybe I'm just too wired to the one-man-one-vote concept.
Click to expand...

There is a cap on electoral votes, but the main answer is, all states get 2 senators, no matter how massive or small, and even the least populated states get 1 representative.

So by default the smallest state always gets 3 electoral votes, not even so much setup to give overwhelming power since wyoming never turns any election, but rather that as a state an underpopulated state like wyoming has 2 senators like every other state and has atleast one representative. This was more of a funtion to ensure all states got equal representation, rather than to try and grant tiny states more power over larger ones.
 
Grand Mal said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. The electoral college reprersentation for each state is the number of federal senators (2 for each state) plus the number of representatives in the House, The controversy is about the number of seats in the house. The state with the lowest population is Wyoming with just under 600,000. Let's call it 600.000. That gives thrm one seat in the house so, logically, each state should get one seat for every 600,000 population, right? If we're talking about representative government? That would give Texas 45 seats in the House, but they only have 36, I'm sure this disparity shows up for every populous state. Why are people who live in large states counted less? Should large states be broken up or small states combined or proportional representation adopted?
It's a very odd system, seems to say that rural voters count for more than urban ones. Or maybe I'm just too wired to the one-man-one-vote concept.
Click to expand...

W/O the EC, rural voters would not have any voice at all. The dip**** liberals in the cities would have it all their way and that ain't right!
The EC is a marvelous tool that I have come to appreciate.
Some highly intelligent and great men, built this country....some very stupid ones are trying to tear it down.
 
beerftw said:
There is a cap on electoral votes, but the main answer is, all states get 2 senators, no matter how massive or small, and even the least populated states get 1 representative.

So by default the smallest state always gets 3 electoral votes, not even so much setup to give overwhelming power since wyoming never turns any election, but rather that as a state an underpopulated state like wyoming has 2 senators like every other state and has atleast one representative. This was more of a funtion to ensure all states got equal representation, rather than to try and grant tiny states more power over larger ones.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't look like equal representation to me if 600,000 gives you one seat but 36,000,000 gives you 53, not 60, and 27,000,000 gives you 36, not 43. If you lived in Texas or California, wouldn't you question those numbers? Both states should have 7 more congressmen if it's equal representation.

I don't disparage the EC system, I'm just trying to see how someone in Wyoming doesn't have a slightly bigger voice then someone in Lubbock or Needles.
 
MickeyW said:
W/O the EC, rural voters would not have any voice at all. The dip**** liberals in the cities would have it all their way and that ain't right!
The EC is a marvelous tool that I have come to appreciate.
Some highly intelligent and great men, built this country....some very stupid ones are trying to tear it down.
Click to expand...

Well, isn't that a blatantly partisan take.
If you live in Casper, Wyoming, why should your vote count for more than mine in Lubbock, Texas? Not just in the EC, in congress. Doesn't high intelligence say that 600,000 population being worth one seat in congress mean that 27,000,000 counts for 45, not 36?
 
Grand Mal said:
Well, isn't that a blatantly partisan take.
If you live in Casper, Wyoming, why should your vote count for more than mine in Lubbock, Texas? Not just in the EC, in congress. Doesn't high intelligence say that 600,000 population being worth one seat in congress mean that 27,000,000 counts for 45, not 36?
Click to expand...

It would seem, but back to my first sentence.
 
Grand Mal said:
It's a very odd system, seems to say that rural voters count for more than urban ones.
Click to expand...

It's a relic of the influence of slave states at the founding. Since slave populations counted toward Congressional apportionment (under the 3/5 compromise) but obviously slaves couldn't vote, making a state's influence in presidential selection proportional to its Congressional apportionment under the EC system was a concession to give the slave states a say disproportionate to their actual voting populations.
 
MickeyW said:
It would seem, but back to my first sentence.
Click to expand...

About rural voters? There's rural voters in Texas and California too. But it takes more of them to elect a congressman than the rural voters in northern states.
 
Grand Mal said:
About rural voters? There's rural voters in Texas and California too. But it takes more of them to elect a congressman than the rural voters in northern states.
Click to expand...

All I know for now, is that the EC rules saved us from electing a Known Crook and bitch, to the WH. I'm happy the system worked. Good or bad, we will find out, but with Hillary, it would have been more of the same.
Hopefully, under Trump, we can turn this Climate Hysteria bull**** around, stop or severely curtail illegal immigration, slow all immigration and vet them better, protect our gun rights and save some babies from murder for convenience.

If he fails to live up to his promises, he will be gone in 4 years.
 
Grand Mal said:
But it doesn't look like equal representation to me if 600,000 gives you one seat but 36,000,000 gives you 53, not 60, and 27,000,000 gives you 36, not 43. If you lived in Texas or California, wouldn't you question those numbers? Both states should have 7 more congressmen if it's equal representation.

I don't disparage the EC system, I'm just trying to see how someone in Wyoming doesn't have a slightly bigger voice then someone in Lubbock or Needles.
Click to expand...

They could not go lower than one as a representative, sorry the founding fathers could not just have one guys severed leg as a representative to ensure 100% equal representation, all states no matter how small get 1 rep and 2 senators, all states even the largest still get only 2 senators, but many more reps.

The representatives are there to represent the people, while senators are there to represent the states. By its default each state is guaranteed 3 electoral votes, it is just how it is.
 
Grand Mal said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. The electoral college reprersentation for each state is the number of federal senators (2 for each state) plus the number of representatives in the House, The controversy is about the number of seats in the house. The state with the lowest population is Wyoming with just under 600,000. Let's call it 600.000. That gives thrm one seat in the house so, logically, each state should get one seat for every 600,000 population, right? If we're talking about representative government? That would give Texas 45 seats in the House, but they only have 36, I'm sure this disparity shows up for every populous state. Why are people who live in large states counted less? Should large states be broken up or small states combined or proportional representation adopted?
It's a very odd system, seems to say that rural voters count for more than urban ones. Or maybe I'm just too wired to the one-man-one-vote concept.
Click to expand...

Well that was the express purpose of the EC, states like Connecticutt and Delaware wanted a disproportionately high representation to prevent overreach by states like New York or Virginia.

Yes, in many ways rural voters may count for more if you use certain metrics, but not always. Example, Montana has an at large congressman and a population of about 1 million, so a Montana vote is less weighted then a California one.

"One person one vote" sounds great in Theory, but IMO it's ultimately unworkable, even your country doesn't manage it. and you don't even elect any of your country's executives, so if we ran a system like yours Barack Obama would've been president two years instead of 8, and Clinton, Reagan, and Bush 1 would never have been presidents.
 
beerftw said:
They could not go lower than one as a representative, sorry the founding fathers could not just have one guys severed leg as a representative to ensure 100% equal representation, all states no matter how small get 1 rep and 2 senators, all states even the largest still get only 2 senators, but many more reps.

The representatives are there to represent the people, while senators are there to represent the states. By its default each state is guaranteed 3 electoral votes, it is just how it is.
Click to expand...

C'mon.
It's not a matter of giving Wyoming less than 1 representative, just giving all states a representative for each multiple of Wyoming's population, 600,000. For example, 6 million would be 10 reps, 18 million would be 30 reps, 36 million would be 60 reps, etc.
Like I said elsewhere, there's lots of rural voters in Texas and California, but it takes more of them to elect a congressman than in Wyoming.
In other words, there's not enough congressmen for equal representation.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well that was the express purpose of the EC, states like Connecticutt and Delaware wanted a disproportionately high representation to prevent overreach by states like New York or Virginia.

Yes, in many ways rural voters may count for more if you use certain metrics, but not always. Example, Montana has an at large congressman and a population of about 1 million, so a Montana vote is less weighted then a California one.

"One person one vote" sounds great in Theory, but IMO it's ultimately unworkable, even your country doesn't manage it. and you don't even elect any of your country's executives, so if we ran a system like yours Barack Obama would've been president two years instead of 8, and Clinton, Reagan, and Bush 1 would never have been presidents.
Click to expand...

Well, the parliamentary system is completely different. The only ones who voted for Trudeau are the ones who live in his riding. Each member of his cabinet was elected to be a Member of Parliament in their riding before being appointed to cabinet. In theory, the Liberal Party caucus could turf Trudeau out and elect, from the members of parliament, a new Prime Minister. So it really is like apples and oranges.
 
Grand Mal said:
C'mon.
It's not a matter of giving Wyoming less than 1 representative, just giving all states a representative for each multiple of Wyoming's population, 600,000. For example, 6 million would be 10 reps, 18 million would be 30 reps, 36 million would be 60 reps, etc.
Like I said elsewhere, there's lots of rural voters in Texas and California, but it takes more of them to elect a congressman than in Wyoming.
In other words, there's not enough congressmen for equal representation.
Click to expand...

That is just minumum limits, there are also maximum limits as well, to ensure if one state became super populated ic could not dictate the country with the electoral college.

The very idea of the electoral college goes back to the visigoths and the franks. The various sects of the germanic tribes needed their king be elected, and they used a college of electors, which were nobles who represented their local groups. Over time it became only certain nobles, then princes, then elector princes, then eventually just a monarchy rather than a vote.

But it's very idea was similiar, wther a noble represented 1500 commoners or 10, he had a vote to represent his people, and the king of that tribe, germanic nation needed the support of the nobles. Even among germanic tribes it worked well because let's say the visigoths even themselves were demographically diverse.

Later was used by the holy roman empire to elect the emperor. The holy roman empire was a collection of numerous kingdoms, and in alot of ways a religious empire moreso than a physical one persay. The electoral vote system allowed votes by representation, and allowed europe to accept the holy roman emperor without each faction killing eachother.
 
beerftw said:
That is just minumum limits, there are also maximum limits as well, to ensure if one state became super populated ic could not dictate the country with the electoral college.

The very idea of the electoral college goes back to the visigoths and the franks. The various sects of the germanic tribes needed their king be elected, and they used a college of electors, which were nobles who represented their local groups. Over time it became only certain nobles, then princes, then elector princes, then eventually just a monarchy rather than a vote.

But it's very idea was similiar, wther a noble represented 1500 commoners or 10, he had a vote to represent his people, and the king of that tribe, germanic nation needed the support of the nobles. Even among germanic tribes it worked well because let's say the visigoths even themselves were demographically diverse.

Later was used by the holy roman empire to elect the emperor. The holy roman empire was a collection of numerous kingdoms, and in alot of ways a religious empire moreso than a physical one persay. The electoral vote system allowed votes by representation, and allowed europe to accept the holy roman emperor without each faction killing eachother.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
My confusion, I think, is I'm not used to the 'united states' concept. Not in a practical sense. It really is different from just dividing a country into smaller administrative units to make government more efficient.
But I think I've now got a handle on how it all works.
And I'd hate to have to explain the odd inconsistencies of the parliamentary system to an American!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom