What a great idea. Let’s rank votes based on race!
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/black-votes-reparations-gerrymandering/
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/black-votes-reparations-gerrymandering/
Woke Thought
- Thread starter Metaxa
- Start date
I'm confused by this statement. Which part of what country has such a situation?
Last edited:
Well the easiest example off the top of my head would be to compare California to any smaller state. 40 M Californians get 2 senators and 55 electoral college votes. North and South Dakota with just over 1.5 M citizens between the two states, each get 2 senators and 3 electoral college votes.
Senators are not apportioned based on population, each state gets 2 senators. Saying nothing for the fact that a Californian can't vote in either of Dakota's senate elections anyways. That's the whole point of the US senate, each State (via having two Senators each) are treated as equals in the Senate. And when it comes to electoral college votes, that is (by in large) apportioned by population - because each states' number of electoral votes is equal to the number of congressional districts plus two (i.e. California gets 55 electoral votes because California has 53 members of congress plus two senators) - and, congressional districts are based on population as determined by the Census. So how does anything you have said mean that one part of the country's votes count for more than another? Democracy says a citizen gets a vote, that's it. Each citizen (of age) gets a vote. Composition of the US Senate or House of Reps is something entirely different - that's (I believe) enshrined in their Constitution.
Just because one state has more (in absolute terms) congressional districts or whatever, doesn't mean the citizens of the state's votes are worth more or less, it just means that state has more people.
You are not wrong, but just because it's "enshrined in their Constitution" doesn't necessarily means it makes sense in this day and age.
Put another way, is voting the president by using the popular vote better or worse? Do the same fears that led to the creation of the current system still hold true?
Quoting and posting stuff like this is just as stupid as when the left quote some rogue right wing's extremist ideas, how do you let a small sample represent a population? Is it because it fits your narrative?
Whether it makes sense or not wasn't the point. You stated that one part of the country's vote is worth more than another parts, so what part of what country are you referring to???
And what does popular vote vs electoral college have anything to do with your statement about votes not being equal??? The "fear" that lead to the Electoral College compromise is that some want Congress to elect the President and some wanted direct popular vote. The "fear" was that Congress should not select/elect a President because of separation of powers - i.e. the Executive and Legislative branches of Government should be separate! But again, that has nothing to do with what you originally stated as "fact" that some votes are worth more than others.
Heck, you even said that it is a "fact" that "one vote in one part of the country is worth a lot less than another part of the country." Again, which part of the country enjoys that "fact"???
Last edited:
I enjoy your enthusiasm. You somehow manage to bring excitement through your use of "???".
Like the prior poster said, simply put, a vote in a place like Wyoming carries more influence than a place like California or New York. I included the entire state population since that should more accurately reflect how they are divided up.
267050 votes tallied in Wyoming for 3 electoral votes. 89016 votes cast per electoral vote. 0.579M or 193K/electoral vote.
17116679 votes tallied in California for 55 electoral votes. 311212 votes cast per electoral vote. 39.5M or 718K/electoral vote.
Saying the electoral college votes are "by in large" apportioned by population, is not at all accurate statement due to the "plus two" votes given. I would love to be educated on why the addition of these two votes makes for an election that reflects the will of its people (ie. a popular vote). A vote is not "equal" because the purpose of the vote - to elect a president - carries different worth in different states.
Like the prior poster said, simply put, a vote in a place like Wyoming carries more influence than a place like California or New York. I included the entire state population since that should more accurately reflect how they are divided up.
267050 votes tallied in Wyoming for 3 electoral votes. 89016 votes cast per electoral vote. 0.579M or 193K/electoral vote.
17116679 votes tallied in California for 55 electoral votes. 311212 votes cast per electoral vote. 39.5M or 718K/electoral vote.
Saying the electoral college votes are "by in large" apportioned by population, is not at all accurate statement due to the "plus two" votes given. I would love to be educated on why the addition of these two votes makes for an election that reflects the will of its people (ie. a popular vote). A vote is not "equal" because the purpose of the vote - to elect a president - carries different worth in different states.
Are you serious??? What does breaking down state population per electoral vote even demonstrate, other than simple math? Wyoming voters do not have "more influence" because that state still only has 3 electoral votes compared to Cali's 55. Based on your "math" Wyoming should get less than 1 electoral vote - would that be more "fair"??? Do you honestly think given the number of electoral college votes that California has, the number of House of Reps seats they have, which state has more "voting power", Cali or Wyoming? Who do you think "moves the needle more" Congress woman Nancy Pelosi of California or the lone congressperson from Wyoming? This is why math and numbers are dangerous, if interpreted incorrectly it leads to widely inaccurate statements such as it's a "fact that one vote in one part of the country is worth a lot less than another part of the country." All your math simply demonstrates is that Wyoming has a small population, it doesn't provide evidence that Wyoming voters are "more powerful" or have "greater influence" or "count for more" vis a vis California.
Honestly, my take on what you are trying to say is that you don't like the US Electoral College system - which is fair enough. But in not liking that system, I think you have "convinced" yourself that somehow a small state like Wyoming is somehow "over-represented". Again, the concept of each state having 2 senators is so that each state can be viewed as equals IN THE SENATE. Seriously mate, it's like you want to say it (but can't or won't) - you don't think Wyoming (or other small States) should have the amount of electoral votes as they do. Now, if you really wanted to amend the Electoral College system to "better reflect" (as you put it) "the will of the people" - you shouldn't whine about small states. You should be advocating that states follow Nebraska and Maine's lead in not awarding their electoral votes on an "all or nothing basis" - and that doesn't even require a US Constitutional Amendment - because each state can choose how to award their electoral votes. And trust me, there are alot of lefties in California that want that - BUT ONLY IF every other state does that. Funny isn't it, people on the left always whine about electoral college (and alot of those lefties are in California), yet those same lefties would be the first to refuse awarding their 55 electoral college votes on a proportional basis. Can't have your cake and eat it too I guess! I don't know if you're on the left or right on the political spectrum; but, your attitude towards smaller states is why some in smaller states see people like you or people in California (advocating certain things) or NY as being "elitists" - you focus your attention on little old Wyoming and how they shouldn't have two Senators or 3 electoral votes while at the same time being perfectly happy that Cali's 55 electoral votes are awarded on an "all or nothing" basis! Saying nothing for the fact that, most of the time, electoral college votes and popular votes go the same way. I mean, sure, it didn't in 2016 - but if that's the anomaly and not the norm, tough to make a claim that "the system is broken" and electoral college needs to be reformed by sticking the boots to Wyoming!
Last edited:
I'm actually very reluctant to join this conversation because the tone already feels heated and bordering on religious, but...
Just my 2¢ - take it for what it's worth.
Ummm... this really is quite simple. You are bringing up a lot of valid and interesting points about the different influences in government, etc., but when it comes right down to it, assuming g eazy's numbers are right, then people from Wyoming, having 193k ballots per electoral vote have about 3.7 times as much influence per vote as people from California, where there are 718k ballots per electoral vote.
Democracy is fundamentally based on math/arithmetic, and the assumption is 1 person 1 vote, not 1 person 1 vote in Wyoming and 3.7 persons per vote in California.
Well, there's a lot not to like about it, but as a Canadian I personally don't care how they want to run their elections (except in as much as it affects Canada, which, sadly, is a lot). I agree that's a different subject, but why go to personal attacks? Why not have a decent, calm, civilized discussion about it?
Just my 2¢ - take it for what it's worth.
[QUOTE="appleomac, post: 2170773, member: 74945"
Just because one state has more (in absolute terms) congressional districts or whatever, doesn't mean the citizens of the state's votes are worth more or less, it just means that state has more people.
[/QUOTE]
Doesn't it? I think this is how Trump won the 2016 election despite losing the popular vote. It's because the electoral college votes aren't weighted evenly from state to state due to population differences. In the example above 1 electoral college vote in the dakotas(combined I believe) represents roughly 500,000 people. In California it represents roughly 725,000 people (not including senate, that would make it even more of a spread) The math would suggest 500,000 votes in dakota = 725,000 votes in california. What am I missing?
https://observer.com/2019/02/electoral-college-explanation-popular-vote-loses/
Just because one state has more (in absolute terms) congressional districts or whatever, doesn't mean the citizens of the state's votes are worth more or less, it just means that state has more people.
[/QUOTE]
Doesn't it? I think this is how Trump won the 2016 election despite losing the popular vote. It's because the electoral college votes aren't weighted evenly from state to state due to population differences. In the example above 1 electoral college vote in the dakotas(combined I believe) represents roughly 500,000 people. In California it represents roughly 725,000 people (not including senate, that would make it even more of a spread) The math would suggest 500,000 votes in dakota = 725,000 votes in california. What am I missing?
https://observer.com/2019/02/electoral-college-explanation-popular-vote-loses/
Last edited:
obviously, the ideas in the article the OP identified are not going to fly and is not the sentiment of the vast number of people who know that people of color in the US and elsewhere get a bum deal. but as soon as people start using the words "leftie" and "woke" then you know that you're dealing with the religious element.
Last edited:
Maybe simplifying this would be easier, eliminating the Electoral College, and tilting senate representation to favour the most populous states would see the bulk of US states leave the union. Once people in CA/NY/TX/FL start dictating how those in ID or any smaller state lives, is the day the great experiment ends....JMO ?
i propose this would never happen... Wyoming would be saying no to federal money contributed by the biggest state economies... go it alone or even in a union of poor states? its not an attractive deal.
Off the topic but where the fuck did this woke shit come from anyway. I mean I woke this morning with my usual morning wood, then after I had my first woke piss and washed my face I was woke enough to make myself a morning latte. Then after that got my woke mojo running, I hopped on the stationary bike and woke up more to some really loud conjunto music. Woke, for fucks sake.
Anyway, on the US congressional system, to see just how well the 2 senators a state works, look no further than the US senate the past years and how they have fucked things up. Combine that with the grand cheeto and the disfunction takes over any woke shit out there.
Anyway, on the US congressional system, to see just how well the 2 senators a state works, look no further than the US senate the past years and how they have fucked things up. Combine that with the grand cheeto and the disfunction takes over any woke shit out there.
