85 - 15

To my knowledge, DC and Puerto Rico are not states which takes them out of the "states rights" discussion. As a supporter of states rights, I do not support giving states representation to DC or Puerto Rico.

 

It's not equality its tyranny over the minority

 

What you would need to look at is the final results. The issue here has nothing to do with prognostication.

The Democratic candidate has won the majority of the votes in 6 or the last 7 elections.

And, you know how that matches the outcomes dictated by the EC.

 

So you are trying to include the 4 elections that Democrats won? LOL....cmon. When it comes to discussing whom the EC favors, you would only look at the 2 where the popular vote and the EC diverged. Of course Democrats are going to win their share of elections. Two divergences in the Republicans favor is not exactly all that convincing. Flipping a coin twice and it landing on heads proves nothing.

 

"States Rights" was just something you brought up. "States rights" has to do with the division between issues that the federal government controls and the issues states control. It affects decisions such as congress deciding to use Nevada as a nuclear toilet without permission of those living there.

So, back to the EC.

The point is that populations of American citizens larger than some states are being ruled by a congress in which they have NO representation.

THAT is what our founders fought against in our revolutionary war!

 

Yes, every state gets a number of presidential electors equal to the sum of their house members and senate members. Because both Wyoming and California both get two senators each, the number of presidential electors is skewed towards the less populous states. Just as the senate is skewed towards the less populous states.

These were the terms that allowed the treaty to be established in the first place. Without them, there would be no treaty.

 

Not it doesn't each state automatically gets 3

2 for the state

1 for the people

 

well, not it isn't. As the 2 are in no way related.

so you don't know what it means then?

 

This is not an issue of any treaty.

And, I've stated that this is not the largest issue.

The larger issues are that residents of Washington, DC and Puerto Rico are American citizens, have populations larger than other states, have their internal decisions ruled by congress, yet have ZERO representation in that congress that rules them.

As long as you're going to talk on an American board, you should learn about America.

 

it isn't. it's total inequality. nobody's vote should count more than anyone elses vote.

 

States rights are "the rights and powers held by individual US states rather than by the federal government." The electoral college and the apportionment of electoral votes is ABSOLUTELY a states rights issue. Neither DC or Puerto Rico are states.

 

affirmative action. a vote in Wyoming weighs 3 times more than a vote in California. that is grossly unequal.

 

This conversation has gotten ridiculous. Lets go our separate ways. We have both had our say.

 

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

An agreement between sovereign states is typically referred to as a treaty.

The District of Columbia isn't a state.

 

Not it's not one vote for the people 600,000

 

A vote for whom?

 

a vote in Wyoming weighs 3 times more than a vote in California. this is just reality.

 

As per your own quote, state's rights is about the the division of rights and powers between the federal government and the states.

It has to do with issues such as to what extent the federal government has a say in civil rights violations by a state, whether the federal government can perform or prevent marriages, whether states can carry out immigration enforcement, whether states can carry out military operations outside the US, whether states can set foreign trade policy specific to their state, etc.

 

what is being discussed? the answer to that question answers your question.

 

LOL!

Two strikes right there!

 

The number of electors is absolutely a states right, as the number of electors represents a power that is given to the states. It is every bit as much of a states right as is having 2 senators for representation regardless of population. I am not sure why you are trying to imply otherwise. I am not even sure why this is all that relevant. Unless you have a substantive place to take this conversation lets agree to stop. I hate aimlessly bickering.

 

I see. You're talking about people of the several sovereign states voting for their state electors.

I'm sure that you know that no state actually is required to hold an vote to choose their presidential electors. A state could choose to randomly select their presidential electors from the phone book.

 

Two strikes? How so?

 

no

obviously. follow the conversation and you won't be so confused.

 

Nah. He’s (she’s) POTUS.