Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Electoral College If We Were Not A Republic, Federation Of States
Sunday, February 9, 2020 2:44 PM
JEWELSTAITEFAN
Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:01 PM
Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:56 PM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by 1KIKI: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I don't think I understand what you mean.Oh, my sideline interest was simply how much does the addition of 2 senators to each state for total electors change the calculus from proportional to population, with the House of Representatives being the base numbers for proportional-to-population to not-proportional. I am still not certain I understand your focus of curiosity. As you surely know, the number of Electors for a State is the number of members representing it has in both chambers of Congress. As a Republic, a Federation of States, the simplest method of tallying Election results is to count the total number of these States forming The Republic which a candidate won, and the greater total is the winner. For instance, Trump won 30 States of The Republic, and Hilliary garnered 20 States - so Trump was the winner. 2. Perhaps you are saying that if we ignore the Republic Federation of States and the Great Compromise, and switch to a Federation of Large Cities, then the Apportionment of Electors could be based on a common pool of 538 Electors. In other words, while the Representatives for the House are apportioned for 435 Representatives, the Electors would follow the same apportionment formula applied to all 538 Electors.
Quote:Originally posted by 1KIKI: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I don't think I understand what you mean.Oh, my sideline interest was simply how much does the addition of 2 senators to each state for total electors change the calculus from proportional to population, with the House of Representatives being the base numbers for proportional-to-population to not-proportional.
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I don't think I understand what you mean.
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by 1KIKI: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I am still not certain I understand your focus of curiosity. A LOT of people were whining about the electoral college ... as if it wasn't in the Constitution and should just be ignored ... I digress ... I'm just curious how much of a difference in per-vote weight it makes, compared to a population-proportional vote. It's just a matter of curiosity. But I actually agree with the electoral college. Whatever its original intent, I believe it keeps cities from running the entire country. Having a strictly popular-vote election could end up as a form of legislated slavery, serving city dwellers. Everyone needs to have their voice heard. Even in so-called fly-over country. Even the so-called basket of deplorables.So, does that mean my #2?
Quote:Originally posted by 1KIKI: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I am still not certain I understand your focus of curiosity. A LOT of people were whining about the electoral college ... as if it wasn't in the Constitution and should just be ignored ... I digress ... I'm just curious how much of a difference in per-vote weight it makes, compared to a population-proportional vote. It's just a matter of curiosity. But I actually agree with the electoral college. Whatever its original intent, I believe it keeps cities from running the entire country. Having a strictly popular-vote election could end up as a form of legislated slavery, serving city dwellers. Everyone needs to have their voice heard. Even in so-called fly-over country. Even the so-called basket of deplorables.
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I am still not certain I understand your focus of curiosity.
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by 1KIKI: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: So, does that mean my #2? Almost, if I understand your formulation. My calculation would use the House of Representatives as the basis for proportional apportionment, including the exceptions already made for states that would mathematically have less than 1 representative by strictly mathematical proportionality, that get a minimum of 1 representative no matter what the mathematical calculation is. But I'm not arguing for it, just to be clear.
Quote:Originally posted by 1KIKI: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: So, does that mean my #2?
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: So, does that mean my #2?
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by 1KIKI: Since I don't know what the 'Federation of Large Cities' is, I can't answer that.Do you prefer 'Federation of Concentrated Population Centers' or Large Urban Centers? Was the description confusing?
Quote:Originally posted by 1KIKI: Since I don't know what the 'Federation of Large Cities' is, I can't answer that.
Quote:Originally posted by 1KIKI: I wonder about the specifics and also the intended use. How large does something need to be to counted? Do you mean total metropolitan (of or constituting a large city or urbanized area, including adjacent suburbs and towns) population, or urban centers only? As a category, how does this lump together such diverse places as Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, and New York into something meaningful?
Wednesday, March 4, 2020 5:55 PM
Monday, July 20, 2020 4:46 PM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL