Want to abolish the EC? Please read this

So you disagree with the intentions of the founding fathers?

Because it is literally in the constitution...
There are numerous reports with what the numbers are, what they should be and proposals to fix the issue.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-representatives-is-same-size-as-in-taft-era/
Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states, “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand”

Originally, as intended by the founders, representatives were fairly even [proportional] to their relative districts, today the most over-representative state has nearly double the representation than the least-representative state does.

 

Ah. You can't provide a meaningful answer to -any- of the questions I asked.
Thanks.

 

Bullshit

"Clinton won 27 counties in Texas, which has 38 electoral votes. In Georgia, which has 16 electoral votes, Clinton won 31 counties. That’s 58 counties without including any counties that Clinton won in any of the other states."

Looks like you got bamboozled right out of the gate

 

Back to editing down posts you don’t like I see...
I guess that is what blind agenda does to people, fascinating to see in real time.

 

Why do American citizens in Washington DC not have the same representation as Wyoming?

Wyoming has 3/4 the population of DC . It has two Senators and one Congressman.

DC has none

WTF

 

Nothing here changes the fact you can't provide a meaningful answer to -any- of the questions I asked.
That being the case, your ideas have no demonstrable merit.
Carry on.

 

Because DC isn't a state, and only states have federal representation.

 

We have established that, several times. Any thoughts on the rest of it?

 

And why is DC not a state?

Because Republicans oppose it...afraid that it would add 2 Dem Senators and challenge their domination of the Senate

 

When you come out of the gate that "wrong"...the rest can be no better

 

There was one discrepancy, it does not invalidate the rest of it.

 

Because it has not been admitted to the union.

DC was created pursuant to the US Constitution, and, like its citizens getting the right to vote for President, would need a constitutional amendment to be admitted to the union -- apparently, when the Democrats passed the 23rd Amendment, they had no interest in making DC a state, so if you feel the need to blame someone, it must be them.

 

Lol...Square miles don't vote, dude, people do. The fact that most of them live in cities is irrelevant, and you know darn well that if your boy trump had won the popular vote by a large margin and then lost the ec vote, you people would be singing out of the other side of your mouth right now.

 

Oh yea...and "miles" don't get representation in government. People do

 

Virginians are gonna be crying in their beer when Trump wins the popular vote and their electors are required to vote for him instead of who their citizens voted for.

 

The "you people" is you. No one gave a damn about the EC until she lost, now "you people" want to change the rules but it's not happening.

 

And yet, these questions remain wholly and completely unaddressed:

- The VP has only the power to break ties in the Senate, and do what the President asks him to do - how does this "counterweight" the President in any way?
- What would be "different" about the Trump administration, if Hillary were the VP?
- How then do you know whatever number you decide upon would provide the representation "intended " by the people who wrote the constitution?

Absent a meaningful answers to these questions, your ideas have no demonstrable merit; as you cannot provide said meaningful answers, I accept your concession of your "point".

 

That isn’t really true:
Republicans supported removing it at 54% — until they realized they could not win without it and immediately shifted their opinion.
(Almost like their only line of ethics is “win”)

 

Wrong as usual

Statehood for the District, which is also known as District of Columbia, might be achieved by an act of Congress, under the power granted to Congress by the United States Constitution to admit new states to the Union (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1)

 

I accept your concession.
Cheers

 

That's where the people are. Simple. The land does not get a vote. Why do you want to give grass and trees a vote?

But as usual you don't know the difference between the EC, and winner take all. One is not the same as the other.

The EC failed when they refused to put an unqualified jackass in office who is not worthy of holding the office. So the EC is useless. They failed in their most important job. The system failed. The country failed. And most of all, people like you failed the country.

 

I explained why it takes an amendment; you mere opinion to the contrary, lacking anything resembling a supporting argument, means nothing.
The Democrats had the chance to add DC as a state; they chose not to - thus, your blame belongs to them.

 

I continue to accept your concession of your "point".

 

The fact you know your statement, above, is not true aside...
I continue to accept your concession of your "point".

 

lol, trump said the EC needs abolished back in 2013.