Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alaska has 3 EC (2 Senators and 1 rep) to California 55 EC (2 Senators and 53 reps). How does Alaska has more EV power than CA? 55 is a lot more than 3.
Each Alaskan controls 1/245360 electoral vote.
Each Californian controls 1/712465 electoral vote.
Each Alaskan is ~3x more powerful than any Californian. Each Alaskan controls triple the vote amount than each Californian.
More EV in proportion to the population difference. California is much more than 18x the population of Alaska.
So your issue is the formula. It's an easy formula. 2 Senators for every state regardless of population and then one more additional vote for each member it has in the House of Representatives based on population. You want to add more reps for California then it's a formula issue applied for all states big or small.
Each state gets 1 rep based on population regardless of size. If you have an issue after that and the formula change it and make the house of reps bigger but the EC is based on the 2 Senators of the state plus their congressmen based on their population.
You are complaining that Alaska has 1 congressman? or that CA should have for reps? they have the most in the nation with 55 and Texas comes 2nd with 38 EC and the difference in population is 9 million people. So 17 EC difference for 9 million voters difference.
Each Alaskan controls 1/245360 electoral vote.
Each Californian controls 1/712465 electoral vote.
Each Alaskan is ~3x more powerful than any Californian. Each Alaskan controls triple the vote amount than each Californian.
You are viewing wrong. You don't count for the 2 Senators that each states gets that counts for EC. It has nothing to do with population. Alaska gets 1 extra EC because they only got 1 rep by population in Congress. You want to take away their 1 rep by population? make it 1/2 vote in congress?
They won't get 2 reps until they reach the formula in the census or they are stuck with 1 vote in Congress.
Why do you pick on Democrat California with Republican Alaska when Texas and Florida are the same thing when you stack it against blue Hawaii, Vermont and Delaware.
The formula is correct. Everybody gets 2 Senators for the state (nothing to do with population) and 1 EC for each congressman which is done by population but all states stats with 1 by default because people lives even in smaller states and most be represented . Why do you compare apples to apples it explains the confusion and feeds to the myth.
You are viewing wrong. You don't count for the 2 Senators that each states gets that counts for EC. It has nothing to do with population. Alaska gets 1 extra EC because they only got 1 rep by population in Congress. You want to take away their 1 rep by population? make it 1/2 vote in congress?
They won't get 2 reps until they reach the formula in the census or they are stuck with 1 vote in Congress.
Why do you pick on Democrat California with Republican Alaska when Texas and Florida are the same thing when you stack it against blue Hawaii, Vermont and Delaware.
The formula is correct. Everybody gets 2 Senators for the state (nothing to do with population) and 1 EC for each congressman which is done by population but all states stats with 1 by default because people lives even in smaller states and most be represented . Why do you compare apples to apples it explains the confusion and feeds to the myth.
Yes, it is understood that each state gets 2 EV's for each Senator regardless of size. The point being made as far as EV is concerned small states punch above their weight so to speak in the power of the EV compared to its population. California and Alaska was used since it was brought up earlier in the thread, but yes the same would be true in comparing Texas and Vermont, Florida and Hawaii, New York and Wyoming, etc.
Yes, it is understood that each state gets 2 EV's for each Senator regardless of size. The point being made as far as EV is concerned small states punch above their weight so to speak in the power of the EV compared to its population. California and Alaska was used since it was brought up earlier in the thread, but yes the same would be true in comparing Texas and Vermont, Florida and Hawaii, New York and Wyoming, etc.
But they don't. Alaska has 1 EC because they have 1 rep in Congress. That's the min. for every state. Their representation is correct. All formulas to add more reps is applied to all states.
Why do you pick on Democrat California with Republican Alaska when Texas and Florida are the same thing when you stack it against blue Hawaii, Vermont and Delaware.
Biggest vs. what you brought up already. There are 10 million more Californians than Texans and 17 million more than Floridians.
There are two ways to fix it:
1 - abolish the house of lords.
2 - revoke the Reappointment Act of 1929.
There's no reason we need a senate. a unicameral chamber would work fine.
The reappointment act of 1929 capped the house at 435. Each rep in 1930 represented 283,223 people. Today each rep represents 761,952 people. The house should be expanded to 1200-1300 reps and scale with population. Or, insead of each rep representing ~250,000, pin a single rep to the population of the smallest state. Today that would be 1:581,000 (Wyoming), California would have 67 reps
But that was why the reappointment act came to be. The house grew from 105 in the 3rd congress to 242 in 1842 to 435 in 1929.
But they don't. Alaska has 1 EC because they have 1 rep in Congress. That's the min. for every state. Their representation is correct. All formulas to add more reps is applied to all states.
Yes and the 2 Senators being included in the EV count gives them more power in proportion to population than California, likewise it gives Vermont more power in proportion to population than Texas. I'm not arguing whether it is right or wrong, or if the system should be changed or not, but rather small states have more power as it related to the EV than larger states when population is taken into account.
Yes and the 2 Senators being included in the EV count gives them more power in proportion to population than California, likewise it gives Vermont more power in proportion to population than Texas. I'm not arguing whether it is right or wrong, or if the system should be changed or not, but rather small states have more power as it related to the EV than larger states when population is taken into account.
Again, the 2 Senators awarded to all states had nothing to do with population but state's interests. That's why the U.S. Senates acts differently than the house. Again, all 50 states in the U.S. Senate are represented evenly. No one has more or less leverage than the other. It's done for a purpose.
Now the house is based on population. That's the balance in our system. We are not a pure democracy. That's why is the best system in the world in my opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
55 is a lot more than 3.
