Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (99661)	12/3/2000 6:49:23 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Earlier today some stated that the Electoral College gave less weight to his Urban vote. I wrote this and believe it to be true: It should have the same weight. In fact it does have the same weight, in your state. What you are forgetting is the name of this country. "The United States" States being the only noun in the title. The States are United and share in their vote as who shall be president. Just as I could not vote against Hillary Clinton for US Senate. It is a strictly Federal position. Yet I have no say at all who represents another states people in US Senatorial or Congressional matter. Just as you should have no impact on which candidate my state selects for President. Think about it. TG

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (99661)	12/3/2000 7:02:18 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Rhode Island has a population of 991,000. It has 4 electoral votes. That means 1 vote per 247,750 residents. California has 33,145,000. It has 54 electoral votes. That means 1 vote per 614,000 residents. So each Rhode Islander gets 2.48 times as many electoral votes as each Californian. and it works proportionately for other states. A state is guaranteed two representatives regardless of how low its population is. This currently does not create too great a disparity; a Rhode Islander gets 1.28 times as many representatives in the House as a Californian. BUT the guarantee of two US Senators really skews things. It means that large states get representatives (and electoral votes) essentially in proportion to their percentage of US population. But if a states population is just 2% of US population (meaning it has just enough population to "earn" its representatives), it gets DOUBLE its "earned" representation in the electoral college. And if its population is below 2% of US population, it gets even more per capita representation in the electoral college. Look, the ec is biased towards small states. Period. ANs that is what was intended in the US Constitution.